HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE LIMITED - PHILIPPINE BRANCH v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Fonn No. 8 1111111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111 11111 1111 11111111111111111111111111111 21 -000500-0061 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10708 HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE NOTICE OF DECISION LIMITED - PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Vi llage Makati City ATTY. WILMER B. DEKIT ATTY. JOANA Q. BILONGILOT Bureau of Internal Revenue, Legal Division BIR Revenue Region No. 88-South NCR 2/F, BlR Regional Office Building 313 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue Makati City SALVADOR LLANILLO & BERNARDO Units 1706- 17 11, 17th Floor, Tower One & Exchange Plaza Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue 1226 Makati City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on September 30, 2025, a Decision was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, October 2, 2025. Jo~ Atty. Maria Chan-Te Executive Clerk of Court II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION HALLIBURTON CTA Case No. 10708 WORLDWIDE LIMITED PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Members: DEL ROSARIO, EJ_., Chairperson, Petitioner, BACORRO-VILLENA, and - versus - CUI-DAVID,]]. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, promulgated: . Respondent. SEP 3'"0 2025 ) ll-2:l>ttfv1 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: In the instant Petition for Review1 filed on 17 December 2 0 2 1 pursuant to Section 3(a)2, Rule 8 in relation to Section 3(a)(2)3, Rule 4 o~. 1 Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 6-26. SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition.- (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal 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 ru ling, 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. SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. - The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appe llate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (2) Inaction by the Commiss ioner of Internal Revenue in cases invo lving 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

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), petitioner Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch (petitioner) seeks the refund of I'I0,523,339�72, which represents its excess and/or unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) on purchases of goods and services attributable to its alleged zero-rated sales for the first (15') to fourth (4'h) quarters of calendar year (CY) 2019. PARTIES OF THE CASE Petitioner is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the Philippine branch office of Halliburton Worldwide Limited, a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands.4 It is likewise registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) under Taxpayer Identification No. (TIN) 266-369-s6s-ooo, with business address at Unit I502-o3, 15th Floor, Richville Corporate Tower, 1107 Alabang-Zapote Road, Madrigal Business Park (MBP), Ayala, Muntinlupa City.s Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed head of the BIR, clothed by law with the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, including the power to decide, approve, and grant claims for refund or issuance of tax credits for excess and/or unutilized input VAT pursuant to applicable statutes, rules, and regulations.6 FACTS OF THE CASE For the 1'' to 4'h quarters of CY 2019, petitioner filed its Quarterly J VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550-Q) through the BIR's Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS) facility on the following dates:7 Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action [.] Exhibit ''P-1", Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 38-49. Exhibit "P-2", id., p. 50. Par. 2, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), id., pp. 419-420. Exhibits "P-3" to "P-6", id., Volume 11, pp. 704-715.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Quarter Period Covered Date Filed 1st January to March 2019 25 April 2019 2nd 25 July 2019 Aoril to June 2019 24 October 2019 3'd July to September 2019 27 January 2020 October to December 2019 4th There it declared a total zero-rated sales of P242,946,27o.s8, broken down as follows: Quarter Zero-Rated Sales 1st 1"75,512,692.01 20,459,149-02 2nd 71,968,215.04 75,oo6,214.51 3 rd 1"242,946,270�58 4th Total For CY 2019, petitioner claimed to have accumulated excess input VAT in the total amount of P10,523.339�72 from its current domestic purchases of goods and services and amortized input VAT on purchases of capital goods from previous quarters, which is the subject of the present petition, as shown in the following tabulation: Source oflnoutVAT I 1st Quarter8 2nd Quarter9 1rd Quarter'o 4rh Quarter'' CY 2019 Current input VAT I'46,899�18 1'16,J50.ll 1'!2243).65 902,994-00 C)02,99+00 Domestic Purchases of Goods l'll,79J.35 1'27,388.8! - 1,094,091�71 1,122,83+95 Other than Capital Goods 1,019,90+54 6,16z,o66.zo Importation of Goods Other 910,699�24 P10,51D,JJ0.8o 1,646,J68.1C) P3, 0<;3, 342� 36 than Capital Goods - - P2, 623, g66.81 1'18,21248 - Domestic Purchases of - 5,203�56 - I'Ij,008.92 Services 141,171.88 756-470.12 - !'10,523,339�72 P- Services Rendered by Non- P- 1'3,053>342�36 I 1'2,623,966.81 residents 1,685,763.52 1,810,029�95 Subtotal P2,239,112.7<; P2, <;g~, 888.88 D~ferred input VAT amortized (or the period Input Tax Deferred on Capital 1'1},008.92 1'5,201.56 Goods Exceeding P1Million from Previous Quarter 1,201.';6 - Less: Input Tax on Purchases of Capital Goods exceeding f7,8o5.~6 P<;,2o3.56 PtMillion deferred for the succeedine oeriod P2,246,938.n ~'2 �599� 0 92-44 Subtotal TOTAL INPUT VAT Exhibit "P-3", id., pp. 704-706. Exhibit "P-4", id., pp. 707-709. 10 Exhibit "P-5", id., pp. 710-712. II Exhibit "P-6", id., pp. 713-715.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X On 31 March 2021, petitioner filed with BIR Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 53B an Application for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), accompanied by a letter dated 30 March 2021.'2 In its application, petitioner sought the refund or, in the alternative, the issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) covering its excess and/or unutilized creditable input VAT for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2019, allegedly attributable to zero-rated sales, in the aggregate amount ofP10,523,339�72. Due to the BIR's alleged inaction, petitioner filed the present petition on 17 December 2o21.'3 The case was initially raffled to this Court's Second Division.'4 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT In its petition before Us, petitioner asserted its entitlement to a refund ofPw,523,339�72, representing its excess and/or unutilized input VAT attributable to its alleged zero-rated sales for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2019, i.e., sales to duly-registered renewable energy (RE) developers and export sales to nonresident affiliates, claiming that all the requisites for a successful claim for VAT refund have been duly satisfied, it alleged that: (1) it is a VAT-registered taxpayer; (2) its sales of '1'242,946,270.58 are valid zero-rated sales; (3) the excess and/or unutilized input VAT are attributable to its valid zero-rated sales; (4) it has excess input VAT that were not applied against any output VAT liability; (s) it timely filed its administrative and judicial claims for VAT refund; (6) the excess and/or unutilized input VAT were properly supported by suppliers' invoices, official receipts (ORs) and other related supporting documents; and (7) its pieces of documentary evidence are authentic and duly executed. On 03 January 2022, the Court issued Summons'S on respondent. However, on n March 2022, respondent filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer"'6 through registered mail. In its Order dated 22 March 2022'7. the Court granted the said motion and there~� 12 Exhibit "P-28", id., pp. 982-997. 13 Supra at note I. Composed of Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy (Ret.), as Chairperson, Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David as Members. 15 Division Docket, Volume I, p. 268. 16 !d., pp. 270-271. 17 !d., p. 275.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECtStON x--------------------------------------------------------------------x extended respondent's deadline to file an Answer untiln April 2022. In compliance therewith, respondent filed his or her Answer18 through registered mail on o8 April 2022. In his or her Answer, respondent raised the following special and affirmative defenses against petitioner's claim for refund of excess and/or unutilized input VAT for the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2019: (1) petitioner's entitlement to refund is conditioned upon strict compliance with statutory requisites under the NIRC of 1997, as amended, such as VAT registration, existence of zero-rated sales, substantiation and proper attribution of input taxes, compliance with invoicing and accounting rules and timely filing of claims; (2) petitioner issued zero-rated ORs worth P9o,042,o8o.92 with expired Authority to Print (ATP), in violation of Sections 23819 and 26420 of the NIRC of1997, as amended; (3) petitioner failed to substantiate importations other than capital goods amounting to P2,294,016.6o; (4) local purchases totaling Pn,250.450.I2 did not meet invoicing requirements under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-200521, as amended; (5) discrepancies of I'2.313,074�53 were found between petitioner's reported sales per income tax return (ITR) and VAT return; (6) sales to the Energy Development Corporation (EDC) worth P2s,o24,68s.82 did not comply with invoicing rules applicable to zero-rated transactions; (7) petitioner issued supplementary receipts, such as billing statements, instead of ORs or sales invoices (Sis), with an aggregate value of PI8,I68,s2o.s1, likewise under an expired ATP; and (8) claims for VAT refund partake of the nature of tax exemptions, which must be construed strictly against the claimant and in favor of the taxing authority, and that the burden of proof rests upon petitioner to demonstrate entitlement through clear legal basis and competent evidence. Meanwhile, prior to the Pre-Trial Conference on 03 November 20222\ respondent filed his or her Pre-Trial Brief on 22 June 2o22.23 Og / 18 !d., pp. 276-282. 19 SEC. 238. Printing ojReceipts or Sales or Commercia/Invoices. SEC. 264. Failure or Refitsalto Issue Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices, Violations Related to the Printing ofsuch Receipts or Invoices and Other Violations. 21 Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005. 22 See Resolution dated 28 September 2022, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 354-356; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order both dated 03 November 2022, id., pp. 418, and 414-415, respectively; the Pre-Trial Conference was initially set for 27 June 2022 but was successively reset to 26 September 2022, then to 29 September 2022. 23 !d., pp 328-330.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x the hand, petitioner submitted its Amended Pre-Trial Brief on 28 October 2022.24 On 29 November 2022, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI)25, which the Court admitted and approved in its Resolution dated 20 December 202226, thereby terminating the pre-trial proceedings. A Pre-Trial Order was issued on u January 2023.27 In the Resolution dated 14 July 202328, the Court directed respondent's counsel, Atty. Joana Q. Bilongilot (Atty. Bilongilot), to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt pursuant to Section s(b)29, Rule 6 of the RRCTA, as amended, and to comply with the Court's Order dated 22 March 2022 requiring the elevation of the entire BIR Records of this case within ten (w) days from notice. Respondent's counsel thereafter filed her "Compliance" and transmitted the records, consisting of 2.397 pages bound in 10 folders, on 04 August 2023.30 Trial on the merits ensued. Petitioner presented its witnesses, namely: (I) Moon Lin Loh (Loh), Tax Manager of Halliburton Business Services Sdn Bhd, which renders services for petitioner; (2) Aubrey Madridano (Madridano), petitioner's Office Administrator; and (3) Richard Querido (Querido), the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA)3', who all testified via their respective judicial affidavits. On the witness stand, Loh declared essentially that: (I) she oversees petitioner's tax matters and is familiar with its operations as a Philippine branch of a foreign corporation duly licensed by the SEC and registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer; (2) she is the Tax Manager of I 24 ld.� pp. 398-413. 25 Id., pp. 419-434. 26 Id., p. 450. 27 ld., pp. 452-459. 28 Id.,p.551. 29 RULE 6 PLEADINGS FILED WITH THE COURT SEC. 5. Answer.- (b) Transmittal ofrecords. 30 Compliance dated 04 August 2023, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 578-579. 31 Oath of Commission dated 15 March 2023, id., p. 476; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order both dated 15 March 2023, id., pp. 475 and 479-480, respectively.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Halliburton Business Services Sdn Bhd, which provides support services to petitioner; (3) petitioner is engaged in rendering oilfield services and products and, for the I'' to 4'h quarters of CY 2019, incurred input VAT from various purchases duly supported by invoices and receipts; (4) said input VAT, amounting to 'P10,523,339�72, was attributable to zero-rated sales to RE developers in the Philippines, paid in pesos, and to nonresident affiliates, paid in foreign currency and settled under an offsetting arrangement duly accounted for in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules; (s) the claimed input VAT was carried over until deducted as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" in the Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the 4'h quarter of CY 202o32 ; (6) the filings were duly supported by eFPS confirmations, authenticated corporate documents of nonresident affiliates and SEC certifications of their non- registration; (7) the governing "Intercompany Services Agreement"33 substantiated the offsetting of intercompany obligations; and (8) petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund with SIR RDO No. 538 on 3I March 2o2I, which, to date, remains unacted upon by the BIR.34 Loh, in the course of her cross-examination, clarified that: (1) she has been discharging the same functions for petitioner since 2015; (2) notwithstanding her foreign citizenship, she is acquainted with prevailing Philippine tax laws; (3) she resides in Malaysia; (4) to remain updated on tax developments, she regularly receives email advisories and occasionally participates in teleconferences conducted by SyCip, Gorres, Velayo (SGV) & Co.; (5) petitioner has not received any formal notice from respondent regarding the denial of its administrative claim; and (6) under the "Intercompany Services Agreement"35, petitioner served as the service provider, while its nonresident foreign affiliates were the recipients of such services.36 No redirect examination was conducted.37 ICPA Querida submitted his "Results of the Procedures Performed f Relative to the Company's Claim for Refund of Its Unutilized Input Tax Covering the I'' to 4'h Quarters of [CY] 2019" (I CPA Report) on 02 May 32 Line 23D, Exhibit "P-10-1", id., Volume II, p. 731. 33 Exhibit "P-27", id., pp. 955-981. 34 Exhibit "P-35", Judicial Affidavit of Moon Lin Loh, id., pp. 370-388; Minutes of the hearing held on, and the Order both dated 09 March 2023, id., pp. 473 and 474, respectively. 35 Exhibit "P-27", supra at note 33. 36 TSN dated 09 March 2023, pp. 9-18. 37 !d., p. 18.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X 2023 and "Results of the Supplemental Procedures Performed Relative to the Company's Claim for Refund oflts Unutilized Input Tax Covering the 1st to 4th Quarters of [CY] 2019" (Supplemental ICPA Report) on 22 September 2023.38 During Madridano's testimony, she declared that: (1) her duties include the custody of petitioner's contracts, handling of sales, coordination with clients and procurement of government certifications necessary to comply with zero-rating requirements; (2) petitioner is engaged in providing oilfield services and products in the Philippines, including drilling, cementing, logging and consulting; (3) during CY 2019, petitioner rendered services to EDC and Philippine Geothermal Production Company, Inc. (PGPC), both REdevelopers duly recognized under Republic Act (RA) No. 951339; (4) petitioner rendered directional drilling services to EDC under a service agreement and amendments thereto; (s) petitioner rendered software subscription, maintenance, and support services to PGPC involving the "Compass Advanced" software, substantiated by maintenance quotations and PGPC purchase orders; and (6) as custodian of petitioner's sales contracts, she had electronic access to and printed copies of said documents, which were submitted in evidence.4� During the hearing held on o8 August 2023, Madridano, on cross- examination, explained that petitioner provided services to EDC and PGPC, all of which were duly supported by ORs that were submitted to ICPA Querido for his evaluationY No redirect examination was conductedY Lastly, ICPA Querido took the witness stand. He testified that: (1) his audit procedures covered the verification of input VAT on domestic purchases, importations, services rendered by nonresidents, and amortization of deferred input VAT, as well as the validation of ) petitioner's declared zero-rated sales; (2) he cross-checked schedules of/ 38 Exhibits "P-36'' and "P-36-3", Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 484-545 and 589-645, respectively. 39 AN ACT PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT, UTILIZATION AND OMMERCIALIZATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Exhibit "P-555", Judicial Affidavit of Aubrey Madridano, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 389-397; Order dated 08 August 2023, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 581-582. 41 TSN dated 08 August 2023, pp. 19-2 I. 42 !d., p. 21.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X input VAT against quarterly VAT returns, inspected receipts and invoices for compliance with invoicing requirements, validated importation records and BIR filings, and ensured that claimed input VAT had not been applied against output VAT in subsequent periods; (3) petitioner's total claim of :Pw,523,339�72 was reviewed, but only :P8,770,518.24 was properly substantiated; (4) petitioner's zero-rated sales for the same period, amounting to P242,946,270.58, were supported by ORs, billing statements, inward remittances and intercompany invoices; (5) certain claimed amounts were excluded for failure to comply with invoicing requirements, being out-of-period, or not being properly substantiated, thereby reducing the valid input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales; and (6) upon the subsequent submission of original BIR Records on 04 August 2023, he conducted further procedures on 18 August and 13 September 2023, which was reflected in his Supplemental !CPA Report confirming the validity of the remaining claim.43 On cross-examination, !CPA Querida clarified that: (1) in the !CPA Report, the substantiated amount of petitioner's claim was :P8,770,518.24; (2) in the Supplemental !CPA Report, the substantiated amount was slightly adjusted to :P8,763,996.81; (3) the decrease stemmed from the availability of additional documents that were not accessible when the !CPA Report was prepared; (4) certain receipts and invoices were excluded because they were issued beyond the validity period of the ATP; and (s) he acknowledged that his findings on expired ATP covered only amounts reflected in the records he examined. No further questions were propounded and the cross-examination was concluded without redirect examination. 44 In the interim, pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01-2023 dated 23 May 2023, which reorganized the Divisions of the Court, the present case was transferred to the Court's First Division by virtue of the Resolution dated 29 May 2023.45 43 Exhibits "P-558" and "P-559"", Judicial Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Independent Certified Public Accountant (!CPA) RichardS. Querido, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 555-574 and 652-667, respectively; Minutes of the hearing held on, and the Order dated 18 January 2024, Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 673-675. 44 TSN dated 18 January 2024, pp. 15-2 I. " Division Docket, Volume I, p. 546.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x On 07 February 2024, petitiOner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence46 (FOE). Respondent did not file his or her comment thereto.47 In the Resolution dated 15 April 202448, the Court admitted all of petitioner's offered exhibits, except Exhibits "P-24-5" and "P-556", for failure to submit the duly marked exhibits. Subsequently, on 02 May 2024, petitioner filed its "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 15 April 2024)"49 (MPR) assailing the Resolution on petitioner's FOE. Respondent again failed to file any comment.50 In its Resolution dated 23 July 20245', the Court granted petitioner's MPR, admitted Exhibit "P-556", and set a Commissioner's Hearing solely for the marking of Exhibit "P-24-5", with the directive that the same shall be deemed admitted thereafter as part of petitioner's exhibits. For his or her part, respondent presented the testimony of his or her lone witness, Revenue Officer (RO) Dominic Jay S. Canabe (Canabe). On the witness stand, RO Canabe of BIR ROO No. 53B testified that he was authorized under Tax Verification Notice (TVN) No. 2018-ooo98030 dated 12 April 20215z to process petitioner's claim for refund of unutilized input VAT for the period 01 January to 31 December 2019. He personally served the notice on petitioner's authorized representative and thereafter evaluated the documents submitted, including the application letter and revised checklist of requirements filed on 31 March 2021. He prepared the undated Memorandum Report53 embodying the following findings: (1) petitioner issued zero-rated ORs for services amounting to I'90,042,o8o.92 using an expired ATP, in violation of Sections 23854 and 26455 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (2) petitioner failed to substantiate importations other than capital/ 46 ld., Volume II, pp. 676-703. 47 Records Verification dated 28 February 2024, id., p. I 004. 48 Id., pp. I009-10 I0. 49 ld., pp. 1026-1029. 50 See Records Verification dated 24 May 2024, id., p. 1033. 5I !d., pp. !038-1040. BIR Records, Folder I, p. 2187. 53 Exhibit "R-5", id., pp. 2363-2369. 54 Supra at note 19. 55 Supra at note 20.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x goods worth P2,294,016.6o, contrary to Sections no(A)S6 and 113(A)s7 of the NIRC of1997, as amended, and Section 4.no-8S8of RR No. 16-o5s9, as amended; (3) petitioner's local purchases worth Pn,250A50.12 did not comply with invoicing requirements under Section 4�113-160 of RR No. 16-os, as amended; (4) a discrepancy ofP2,]13,074�53 was found between reported sales per ITR and VAT returns, representing sales of property, plant and equipment subject to VAT under Sections 1056' and 10662 of the of the NIRC of1997, as amended; (s) petitioner failed to comply with invoicing rules for zero-rated sales to EDC amounting to P25,024,68s.82; and (6) petitioner issued supplementary receipts such as billing statements, instead of VAT invoices or ORs, worth PI8,I68,520.51, likewise under an expired ATP. RO Canabe stated that while a notice of denial had been prepared, it remained unsigned because the docket was forwarded to respondent's Assessment Division and later to his or her Legal Division when petitioner elevated its claim to this Court.63 No cross-examination followed. 64 On 22 April 2024, respondent filed his or her FOE65, to which petitioner filed its "Comment (Re: Respondent's [FOE])"66 on 29 April 2024. In the Resolution dated 23 July 202467, the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits. Thereafter, petitioner filed its Memorandum on 16 September I 2024.68 Respondent did not file his or her Memorandum. 69 On 30 September 2024, the case was deemed submitted for decision.7� 56 SEC. II 0. Tax Credits. - A. Creditable Input Tax. 57 SEC. I 13./nvoicing and Accounting Requirements fOr VAT-Registered Persons.- (A) invoicing Requirements. 58 SEC. 4.110-8. Substantiation ojlnput Tax Credits. 59 Supra at note 21. 60 SEC. 4.113-1. Invoicing Requirements. 61 SEC. 105. Persons Liable. SEC. I06. Value-Added Tax on Sale ofGoods or Properties. 63 Exhibit "R-6", Judicial Affidavit of Revenue Officer (RO) Dominic JayS. Can abe, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 286-293; Order dated 16 April 2024, Division Docket, Volume II, pp. I012-1013. 64 TSN dated 16 April2024, p. 9. 65 Division Docket, Volume 11, pp. I015-1021. 66 !d., pp. I022-1024. 67 !d., pp. 1038-1040. 68 !d., pp. I049-1081. 69 See Records Verification dated 10 September 2024, id., p. 1048. 70 See Notice of Resolution dated 30 September 2024, id., p. !084.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X ISSUE As can be gleaned from the parties' JSFF', the sole issue for this Court's resolution is- WHETHER PETITIONER HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE LIMITED- PHILIPPINE BRANCH IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OR THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC) OF ITS ALLEGED UNUTILIZED INPUT VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) ALLEGEDLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ZERO-RATED SALE OF SERVICES FOR THE FIRST (rST) TO FOURTH (4TH) QUARTERS OF CALENDAR YEAR (CY) 2019 IN THE AMOUNT OF .Pw,523>339�72. ARGUMENTS In support of its petition, petitioner insists that it fully complied with all statutory requisites for a VAT refund, namely: (1) it is a VAT- registered taxpayer engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; (2) its input VAT claimed is due or paid, and does not include transitional input taxes; (3) the input VAT being claimed has not been applied against output VAT during the same or succeeding quarters; (4) the input VAT claimed represents the proportionate share allocated to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, in accordance with the law; (s) the claim for refund or TCC was filed within the mandatory periods prescribed by law; and (6) petitioner maintains that all documentary requirements for substantiating the claim have been met, including proper invoicing and substantiation of importations and local purchases. Respondent, on the other hand, opposes the claim on the following grounds: (1) petitioner issued zero-rated ORs for sales amounting to P90,042,o8o.92 using receipts with expired ATP, violating Section 23872 and punishable under Section 26473 of the NlRC of 1997, as amended; (2) petitioner failed to fully substantiate importations (other J than capital goods) worth P2,294,016.6o, as required by Sections no(A)74 and 113(A)7S of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (3) local purchases worth I 71 Issue, JSFI, id., Volume I, p. 420. 72 Supra at note 19. 73 Supra at note 20, 74 Supra at note 56. 75 Supra at note 57.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Pn,zsoAso.12 did not comply with the invoicing requirements under Section 4.113-176 of RR No. 16-os, as amended; (4) there is a discrepancy of P2,313,074�53 between total sales per ITR and VAT return, representing sale of property, plant, and equipment, which should be subject to 12% VAT under Sections 10577 and 10678 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; (s) petitioner failed to comply with the invoicing requirements for sales to EDC subject to o% VAT, amounting to Pzs,o24,68s.8z; (6) petitioner issued supplementary receipts (billing statements) instead of ORs/Sis, and these were also issued with expired ATP, covering sales of P18,168,szo.s1; and (7) claims for VAT refund partaking the nature of tax exemptions, must be construed strictly against the claimant and in favor of the taxing authority, and that the burden of proof rests upon petitioner to demonstrate entitlement through clear legal basis and competent evidence. RULING OF THE COURT After a careful and thorough evaluation of the parties' respective evidence and the applicable laws, rules and regulations, the Court finds the instant petition partly meritorious. Petitioner anchors its claim on Sections no(B)79, nz(A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA 10963 or Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN), which are quoted hereunder: SEC. no. Tax Credits. - (B) Excess Output or Input Tax. - If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: I Provided, however, That any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 112. 7G Supra at note 58. 77 Supra at note 61. Supra at note 62. 79 As amended by Republic Act No. 9361, "AN ACT AMENDING SECTION I IO(B) OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits ofInput Tax.- (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. -Any VAT- registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section w6(A)(2)(a)(r), (2) and (b) and Section w8(B)(r) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero- rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section w8(B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. (C) Period within which Refund ofInput Taxes shall be Made.- In proper cases, the Commissioner shall grant a refund for creditable input taxes within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsections (A) and (B) hereof: Provided, That should the Commissioner find that the grant of refund is not proper, the Commissioner must state in writing the legal and factual basis for the denial. In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (3o) days from the receipt of the decision denying the claim, appeal the decision with the Court of Tax Appeals: Provided, however, That failure on the part of any official, agent, or employee of the BIR to act on the application within the ninety (9o)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code.80 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. 8' (Deutsche Knowledge Services), the Supreme Court laid down the requisites for the entitlement to tax refund or credit~� of excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, to wit: 80 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 81 G.R. No. 234445, 15 July 2020; Citations omitted.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Under Section 4.112-1(a) of Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 16-os, otherwise known as the Consolidated VAT Regulations of 2005, in relation to Section 112 of the Tax Code, a claimant's entitlement to a tax refund or credit of excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales hinges upon the following requisites: "(1) the taxpayer must be VAT-registered; (2) the taxpayer must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated; (3) the claim must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; and (4) the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax." Applying the foregoing principle, the Court will proceed to determine whether petitioner complied with the aforementioned requisites. For an orderly discussion, We shall start with the third (3'd) requisite, followed by the first (1't) and second (2nd) requisites, then the fourth (4th) requisite. THIRD (JR0) REQUISITE: THE CLAIM MUST BE FILED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE QUARTER WHEN SUCH SALES ARE MADE. In accordance with Section n2(A) and (C)82 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by TRAIN, the administrative claim for refund ofunutilized input VAT must be filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales are made. Petitioner's present claim covers the 1't to 4th quarters of CY 2019. Counting two (2) years from the close of the subject taxable quarters, petitioner had until the following dates to file its administrative claim, to wit: Period Covered Close of the Taxable Last Day to File Quarter Administrative Claim I 5t quarter 31 March 2019 31 March 2021 (01 january to 31 March 2019) 82 Supra at p. 14.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 2"d quarter 30 June 2019 30 June 2021 (o1 April to 30 June 2019) 30 September 2019 30 September 2021 31 December 2019 31 December 2021 3'd quarter (o1 July to 30 September 2019) 4'' quarter (01 October to 31 December 2019) Hence, petitioner timely filed its administrative claim for VAT refund concerning the foregoing period with respondent on 31 March 2021.83 As to the timeliness of petitioner's judicial claim, respondent had ninety (9o) days or until 29 June 2021, to decide on petitioner's administrative claim. However, considering that during the said period, enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) and modified enhanced community quarantine (MECQ) were imposed due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic84, thereby further extending the 90-day period to act, and taking into account the additional thirty (30) days after the lifting thereof per RR No. 27-2o8s, the 90-day to act now began to run on 14 June 2021. Be that as it may, additional ECQ and MECQ were imposed during the concerned period86 further extending the 9o-day period to act to 21 November 2021. I 83 Exhibits "P-28"" and "P-29", Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 982-998. " Dates Imposed Number COVID-1 9-related Issuances Quarantine of days Restriction 0 I April 2021 to ECQ/MECQ 30 Memorandum from the Executive Secreta!)' 30 April 2021 from 27 March 2021; IATF-EID Resolution No. 108-A, 04 April 2021; IATF-EID Resolution No. 109-A, 10 April2021 OJ May 2021 to MECQ 14 JATF-EID Resolution No. 113-A, 29 April 14 Mav 2021 2021 Total 44 85 Regulations Suspending the Filing and Ninety (90)-Day Processing of Value-Added Tax (VAT) Refund Claims Anchored Under Section 112 of the Tax Code of 1997, as Amended, in Relation to Section 4(tt) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11494, Otherwise Known as the "Bayanihan to Recover as One Act". 86 Dates Imposed Number COVID-19-related Issuances Quarantine of days 06 August 2021 to Restriction lA TF-EID Resolution No. 130-A. 29 July 20 Aueust 2021 15 0021 21 August 2021 to ECQ lA TF-EID Resolution No. I34, I9 August 3 I Auaust 202 I II 2021 MECQ

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Considering respondent was unable to act on petitioner's administrative claim within the said 9o-day period, petitioner had 30 days from the expiration of the same, or until 21 December 2021, to file a judicial claim. Given that petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on 17 December 202187, the same was timely filed within the reglementary period. Such being the case, the Court finds that petitioner satisfied the above-stated 3'd requisite. FIRST (IST) REQUISITE: PETITIONER MUST BE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT)-REGISTERED. Undeniably, petitiOner is a VAT-registered taxpayer with TIN 266-369-s6s-ooo, as shown in its SIR Certificate of Registration (COR) Number OCN 9RCoooos3osso.88 Thus, petitioner complied with the 1st requisite. SECOND (2ND) REQUISITE: PETITIONER MUST BE ENGAGED IN SALES WHICH ARE ZERO-RATED OR EFFECTIVELY ZERO-RATED. The z"d reqwszte requires that the taxpayer be engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. Petitioner claims that its reported zero-rated sales/receipts for CY 2019 consisted of- (1) export sales of goods to nonresident foreign affiliates doing business outside the Philippines; and (2) sales to duly registered RE developers, detailed as follows:89 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3'd Quarter 4th Quarter CY 2019 1'<;3,242,03 Halliburton l's3,242.03 Energy Services (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 0 I September 2021 to MECQ 7 I IATF-EID Resolution No. 135-A, 26 August 07 September 2021 MECQ 08 September 2021 to 2021 15 Seotember 2021 Total 8 lA TF-EID Resolution No. 137, 07 September 2021 41 87 Supra at note 1. 88 Supra at note 5. 89 Par. 7, Petition for Review, supra at note l, p. 8.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Halliburton 1'74.455.984-27 288,647�04 1'262,119�58 1'2,016,631.42 288,647�04 Drilling 262,119�58 Technologies, Inc. 1,0<;6,707�74 /341,889,07 1'262,119�58 f'2, 016,631,42 Halliburton 1"75�512, 692.01 20,117,259�95 71,706,095-46 2,016,631.42 Energy Services, 1'75�512,692,01 72,674.593�88 Inc. 1'20,117,259�95 f'71, 706, 095�46 P2,620,640.07 Halliburton AS 1'20,459>149�02 1'71,968,215.04 314,989.21 f'72, 989,583.09 238.953�933�56 Export Sales of P75,oo6,21.4.51 Goods to Non- 1,371,696�95 Resident Foreign f'240,J25,630,51 Affiliates 1'242,946,270�58 Energy Development Corporation (EDC) Philippine Geothermal Production Company (PGPC) Sales to RE developers Total Sales 1. EXPORT SALES OF GOODS TO NONRESIDENT FOREIGN AFFILIATES DOING BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner maintains that during the 1st to 4th quarters of CY 2019, it generated zero-rated sales from its export sales to nonresident foreign affiliates doing business outside the Philippines under Section w6(A)(2)(a)(1)9o of the NIRC ofr997, as amended. To qualify as zero-rated under Section w6(A)(2)(a)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the following essential elements must be present/" 90 SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale ofGoods or Properties.- (A) Rate and Base of Tax. -There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, a value-added tax equivalent to twelve percent (12%) of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor. (2) The following sales by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (a) Export Sales. -The tenn 'export sales' means: (I) The sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the goods so exported and paid for in acceptable foreign currency or its equivalent in goods or services, and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)[.]

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 1. The sale was made by a VAT-registered person; 2. There was a sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country; and, 3� The sale was paid for in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP. The first essential element is undisputed. As for the second essential element, Sections 113(A)(1), (8)(1) and (2)(c) of the NIRC ofi997, as amended, and Sections 4-113-1(A)(1), (8)(1) and (2)(c) ofRR No.16-os9\ respectively provide: SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons.- (A) Invoicing Requirements.- A VAT-registered person shall issue: 1. A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and 2. A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. (B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. -The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: 1. A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN); 2. The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax: Provided, That: (a) The amount of the tax shall be shown as a separate item in 1 the invoice or receipt; 91 Supra at note 21.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x (b) If the sale is exempt from value-added tax, the term 'VAT- exempt sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (o%) value-added tax, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the breakdown of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale.9" SEC. 4�113-1. Invoicing Requirements. - (A) A VAT-registered person shall issue: - 1. A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and 2. A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. Only VAT-registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word "VAT'' in their invoice or official receipts. Said documents shall be considered as a 'VAT Invoice' or VAT official receipt. All purchases covered by invoices/receipts other than VAT Invoice/VAT Official Receipt shall not give rise to any input tax. VAT invoice/official receipt shall be prepared at least in duplicate, the original to be given to the buyer and the duplicate to be retained by the seller as part of his accounting records. (B) Information contained in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: 1. A statement that the seller IS a VAT-registered person, l followed by his TIN; 92 Emphasis and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 2. The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT; Provided, That: a. The amount of tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; b. If the sale is exempt from VAT, the term "VAT-exempt sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; c. If the sale is subject to zero percent (o%) VAT, the term "zero-rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; d. If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero- rated or VAT-exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break-down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the VAT on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt. The seller has the option to issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale.93 From the above provisions, any VAT-registered person claiming VAT zero-rating in relation to export sales of goods must present the following documents: (1) SI as proof of sale of goods showing prominently the term "zero-rated sale"; and (2) Bill of lading or airway bill as proof of actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country. In addition to the above requirements94, the Sis supporting the export sales must be duly registered with the BIR and must contain all the required information, pursuant to Sections 237 and 238 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, viz: SEC. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. -All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, for each sale or transfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at Twenty-five pesos (P25.oo) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, prepared at least in duplicate, showing the date 93 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 94 See Eastern Telecommunications ?hils. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 183531,25 March2015.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service.... SEC. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. - All persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Bureau of Internal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices before a printer can print the same. No authority to print receipts or sales or commercial invoices shall be granted unless the receipts or invoices to be printed are serially numbered and shall show, among other things, the name, business style, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and business address of the person or entity to use the same, and such other information that may be required by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner.9s To summarize the foregoing requirements, the following information should be reflected in the VAT invoice or OR: 1. A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by its TIN; 2. The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT, provided that: (a) the amount of tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; (b) if the sale is exempt from VAT, the term "VAT exempt sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (c) if the sale is subject too% VAT, the term "zero-rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; or (d) if the sale involves goods, properties or services, some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT- exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the breakdown of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the VAT on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt. The seller has the option to issue separate invoices or receipts for I the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale; 95 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x 3� In the case of sales in the amount of P1,ooo.oo or more, where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT-registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and TIN of the purchaser, customer or client; 4� Date of transaction; and 5� Quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service.96 Tellingly, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 42-0397 expressly provides that a taxpayer's failure to comply with the invoicing requirements will result in the disallowance of the claim for input tax, as follows: Q-13: Should penalty be imposed on TCC application for failure of claimant to comply with certain invoicing requirements, (e.g., sales invoices must bear the TIN ofthe seller)? A-13: Failure by the supplier to comply with the invoicing requirements on the documents supporting the sale of goods and services will result [in] the disallowance of the claim for input tax by the purchaser-claimant. If the claim for refund/TCC is based on the existence ofzero- rated sales by the taxpayer but it fails to comply with the invoicing requirements in the issuance of sales invoices (e.g., failure to indicate the TIN), its claim for tax credit/refund of VAT on its purchases shall be denied considering that the invoice it is issuing to its customers does not depict its being a VAT-registered taxpayer whose sales are classified as zero-rated sales. Nonetheless, this treatment is without prejudice to the right of the taxpayer to charge the input taxes to the appropriate expense account or asset account subject to depreciation, whichever is applicable. Moreover, the case shall be referred by the processing office to the concerned BIR office for verification of other tax liabilities of the taxpayer. gB See Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 166732 27 April 2007. I' Clarifying Certain Issues Raised Relative to the Processing of Claims for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Credit/Refund, Including Those Filed with the Tax and Revenue Group, One-Stop Shop Inter- Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center, Department of Finance (OSS) by Direct Exporters. 98 Italics in the original text, emphasis and emphasis supplied.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Thus, only export sales supported by documents compliant with the above-stated requirements shall qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section w6(A)(2)(a)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. To prove its export sales off>2,62o,64o.o7, petitioner presented Sis and shipment waybills, except for the amount off>288,647�04, as shown below: Summary Billing SI Shipment Amount of Reference Statement Waybill Export Sales (Annexed to Customer Name Date Exhibit "P- 1'288,647�04 Exhibit No. 1'288,647�04 36-J") Supported only by a billing statement '53,242.01 262,119 .58 Halliburton 2,016,631.42 1'2,JJI,99J�03 Drilling f'z,62o,64o.o7 Annex B-s Technologies Inc May 1, 2019 "P-533" - - Sub-total Supported by Sis and shipment wa bills Halliburton Energy Services Malaysia Annex B-s SDN BHD 16 April 2019 - "P-<;14" "P-535" Halliburton Energy Annex B-s Services Inc. 2'5 july 2019 - "P-'536" "P-s37" Halliburton AS 17 December Annex B-s 2019 - "P-s38" "P-539" Sub-total Total export sales of goods to non-resident foreign affiliates However, We note that the Sis supporting petitioner's export sales ofP2,331,993.03 were not duly registered with the BIR as required under Sections 237 and 238 of the NIRC of1997, as amended. Also, petitioner's TIN and the term "zero-rated sale" were not indicated on the said Sis, which are clear violations of the invoicing requirements. Consequently, petitioner failed to satisfy the second essential element. In sum, petitioner's claimed export sale ofgoods to its nonresident foreign affiliates amounting to P2,62o,64o.o7, failed to qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section w6(A)(2)(a)(1) of the NIRC of 1997, as f-7 y amended.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X 11. SALES TO RENEWABLE ENERGY(RE)DEVELOPERS Petitioner alleges that its sales to EDC and PGPC, RE developers, are zero-rated pursuant to Section 15(g)99 of RA 9513 in relation to Section w8(B)(3)100 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Based on its "Schedule ofZero-Rated Sale ofServices and Schedule of Zero-Rated Sale of Goods" 10 , petitioner's reported sales to EDC and ' PGPC can be further broken down as follows: Sales of goods EDC PGPC Total Sales of services ' Sales/Receipts Total f'2 5,o24,685.82 i Sales/Receipts 213,929,247�71 ' P2 5,o2 4 , 6 s 5. s 2 - 1'238�953>933�53 215,300,944�66 f'1,371,696.95 PI,J7I,696�95 P240>325,63o.48 Before We delve on whether the aforesaid sales qualify for VAT zero-rating, We shall first determine whether petitioner complied with the pertinent invoicing requirements.'02 99 Sec. IS. Incentives for Renewable Energy Projects and Activities. - RE developers of renewable energy facilities, including hybrid systems, in proportion to and to the extent of theRE component, for both power and non-power applications, as duly certified by the DOE, in consultation with the BOI, shall be entitled to the following incentives: (g) Zero Percent Value-Added Tax Rate. - The sale of fuel or power generated from renewable sources of energy such as, but not limited to, biomass, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, ocean energy and other emerging energy sources using technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen fuels, shall be subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax (VAT), pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9337. All REDevelopers shall be entitled to zero-rated value added tax on [their] purchases of local supply of goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction and installation of its plant facilities. This provision shall also apply to the whole process of exploring and developing renewable energy sources up to its conversion into power, including but not limited to the services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors. 100 SEC. !08. Value-Added Tax on Sale ofServices and Use or Lease of Properties.- (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate. - . " }J (3) Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or international j/ agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the supply of such services to zero percent (0%) rate[.] 101 Exhibits "P-551" and "P-552", USB (Exhibit ''P-36-5"). 102 Supra at pp. 22-23.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X�� � � ������ �� ������ � � � ������ � ������ � � � ��� ���� �������� � � ������ � �������X As previously discussed, the invoicing requirements require that BIR-registered VAT Sis must support the sale of goods, whereas BIR- registered VAT ORs must substantiate the sale of services.103 The Sis and ORs must contain all the information required under the said law and regulations. With regard to petitioner's sales of goods to EDC in the amount of f>25,024,68s.82, petitioner presented the billing statements104 it issued, instead of BIR-registered Sis, hence, the same shall be disallowed. As to petitioner's sales of services to EDC and PGPC in the total amount of f>2I5,300,944�66, petitioner presented BIR-registered VAT ORs, summarized as follows: S u m m a r y105 / Amount of Sales Folder106 Reference Exh. Customer OR OR Date Per OR Per Difference No. Name No. 21 June 2019 (1'98.4 'l?-30) Annex B-1 "P-436" EDC 6510 O'i july 2019 Schedule107 (187,645-46) "P-439" EDC 6515 26 july 2019 (179,036�70) Annex B-1 "P-443" EDC 6 516 1'4,823,428.35 1'4,921,865.65 (266,974-22) Annex B-1 "P-448" EDC 6517 12 july 2019 (95�311.35) Annex B-1 "P�4'i1" EDC 6')18 19 july 2019 9�194,627.61 9�382,273�07 (3,411.6'l) Annex B-1 "P-4.:;4" EDC 6519 (82,814.21) Annex B-1 "P-459 "" EDC 6520 "july 2019 8,772,798�33 8,99,835�03 (28,2l'i.17) Annex B-1 "P-462" EDC 6';21 23 August 2019 13,081,7'J6.6, l'l-348, 710.87 Annex B-1 4,670,2')6.02 4,765,'567->7 ( 'l40,821.2'l) 6')22 27 August 2019 Annex B-1 18 September 337.751.86 341,163�49 (246,460.29) 6')23 4,o58,891. 79 4,141, 7 2 6 . o o Annex B-1 201() (13,645�'l4) 6')2') 25 September 1,'382,')28-4'3 1,410,743.60 (26,804,92) .Annex B-1 6526 Annex B-1 "P-467'' EDC 2019 16,700,240.-:tl 17,041,061.<:;4 (127,778.67) "P�47o" EDC 6527 Annex B-1 04 October 12,o76,5'i4-19 12,"'\23,014-48 (299,035�78) "P-47s" EDC 6528 668,621.70 682,267.04 Annex B-1 2019 (26, 518.24) "P-"=s6" EDC 6529 1,'lH.440.98 1.}40,24'i�90 Annex B-1 n October 2019 "P-48o" EDC o8 November 6,261,154�93 6a88,933.6o 103 "P-486" EDC 2019 14,652,752�74 14,951,788.52 104 "P-489" EDC 29 November 1,274.393�77 1,)00,912.01 lOS 106 2019 107 o6 December 2019 See Kepco PhWppines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 181858, 24 f November 20 I0. Exhibits "P-531" and "P-532", Annex B-4, USB (Exhibit "P-36-5''); summarized in Annex B-4, !CPA Supplemental Report (Exhibit "P-36-3"), Division Docket, Volume I, p. 644. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 640-642. USB (Exhibit "P-36-5"). Exhibit "P-551 ", USB.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Annex B-1 "P-494" EDC 6530 26 December 22,727,')02.99 22,985,761.0o (258,258.01) Annex B-2 "P-499" EDC 6505 2019 12,<;82,067.12 12,838,843�99 (256.776.87) "P-5o5" EDC 6o;o6 12,601,671.98 12,86o,889.88 (257,217.90) Annex B-2 "P-510" EDC 6507 04 january 2019 13.447,219.26 (274�431.05) "P-514" EDC 65o8 27 March 2019 1,308,723.26 11,721,6')2.31 (26,708.64) Annex B-2 "P-s1s" EDC 6509 13 March 2019 16,9o8, 786.02 1.335.431.90 (345,077�") Annex B-2 "P-522" EDC 65u 20 March 2019 15.357,221.60 17,2')3,861.1'; ( )1),412.68) Annex B-2 EDC 20 March 2019 15,670,634�28 (774,668.')4) Annex B-2 "P-525" EDC 6513 29 March 2019 - 774,668.)4 (249.904-74) Annex B-2 "P-'i29" EDC 6')14 12.495,217-40 Annex B-2 02 May 2019 12,245.332.66 2,700,1<;6.8q (54,oo3.1o;) Annex B-2 "P-497'' 22 May 2019 2,646,1';1.74 P2IJ,929,247�7' (P4,833.391.42) Subtotal P2o9, 095, 8;6.29 Annex B-1 PGPC n61 19 March 2019 I' 1,098,68o.96 I' 1,oo;6,7o7.74 I' 41,973�22 Annex B-2 PGPC - 114,989.21 b4,Q8Q.21) Subtotal PI,o98,68o.96 PI,J7I,696�9> (P271,0I<;.99) Total l'210,194o537�2'i 1'215,100,944�66 (l';,w6,407.41) However, as shown above, the sales/receipts reflected in the supporting ORs amounted only to 1'210,194,537�25, which is lower by P5,106Ao7-41 when compared against the declared sales/receipts in the amount of 1'215,J00,944�66. The said discrepancy of P5,106Ao7-41 consisted of the following: Amount of Sales EDC PGPC Total Without supporting ORs (1"774,668.54) (1"314,989.21) (f'1,o89.657. 75) With supporting ORs but the amounts indicated therein (4,058.722.88) 41,973.22 (4,016,749�66) differ with the amounts shown per petitioner's (P4,833>391.42) (1"273,015�99) (f's,w6,4o7.41) schedule/claim Total discrepancy in sales/receipts Petitioner's claimed sales/receipts in the amount ofP1,o89,657�75 must be disallowed for being unsupported by B!R-registered VAT ORs, which is in violation of the substantiation requirements under Section , 113(A)(2)108 of the NIRC ofl997, as amended, and Section 4�113-1(A)(2)109 / of RR No. 16-os. "" Supra at p. 19. 109 Supra at pp. 20-21.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X The same holds true as the claimed sales/receipts of P4,016,749�66. lCPA Querido noted that the amounts indicated in the ORs were net of withholding tax. However, there was no indication of the amount of gross receipts and the deduction of withholding tax. Neither did petitioner submit the corresponding withholding tax certificates. Such being the case, the amount ofP4,016,749�66 is deemed not supported by BIR-registered VAT ORs and, thus, must be disallowed. Moreover, petitioner's claimed sales/receipts in the amount of P88,197,856.6o must also be disallowed for being supported by ORs which were dated outside the validity period of the ATP (i.e., 07 June 2019 to o6 June 2024) appearing on the ORs, to wit: Summary"0 /Folder'" Exhibit OR OR Date EDC PGPC Total Reference Number No. 19 March 2019 - 1"1,o98,68o.96 1"1,o98,68o.96 Annex B-2 "P-497" n61 04 January 2019 Annex B-2 "P-499" 27 March 2019 1"12,582,067.12 l"r,o98,68o.96 12,582,067.12 Annex B-2 "P-sos" 6505 13 March 2019 12,603,67!.98 12,603,67!.98 Annex B-2 "P-sro" 65o6 20 March 2019 13.44 7,219.26 13.447,219.26 Annex B-2 "P-SI4" 6507 20 March 2019 1,308,723.26 Annex B-2 6so8 29 March 2019 1,308,723.26 16,9o8,786.o2 Annex B-2 "P-srs" 6509 o2 May 2019 16,9o8,786.o2 15,357,221.60 Annex B-2 "P-522" 65u 12,245.332.66 Annex B-2 "P-525" 6513 22 May 2019 15,357,221.60 2,646,153-74 "P-szg" 6514 Total 12,245�332.66 l"88,I97,856.6o 2,646,153-74 '1"87,099�175�64 Although the ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or ORs because there is no law or regulation requiring it"\ this does not dispense with the statutory requirement of securing an ATP and registering its invoices or ORs before they can be used. Here, petitioner issued unregistered ORs. Consequently, such receipts carry no probative value for purposes of establishing entitlement to a VAT refund."3 Thus, out of petitioner's reported sales of services to EDC and PGPC in the amount ofP215,300,944�66, only that pertaining to EDC in ) 110 ICPA Supplemental Report (Exhibit "'P-36-3), Division Docket, Volume I, p. 642. Ill USB (Exhibit "'P-36-5"). 112 See Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, supra at note 96. 113 See Silicon Philippines, Inc. (Formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172378, 17 January 2011.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X the amount of P121,996,68o.65 is properly supported by B!R-registered VAT ORs, computed as follows: Amount of reported sales of services EDC PGPC Total Less: Disallowances 1'21';,100,94+66 1'211,929,247�71 l'1,171,6g6.go; Without supporting ORs 1,o89,6'i7�7'i Discrepancy in sales as reflected in the 774.668.';4 314,989.21 4,016,749�66 ORs and as declared per VAT returns 4,os8,722.88 (41,971-22) Sales supported by VAT ORs dated 87,099,175�64 1,o98,68o.96 88,197,856.6o outside the validity period of the ATP 1'91�932,<;67.06 1'1,371,696�95 appearing on the ORs ~'93�304,264.01 Total Disallowances 1'121,996,68o.6s - Sales of services properly supported by 1'121,996,68o.6s BIR- registered VAT ORs Relative thereto, petitioner claims that its sales to EDC, being an RE developer, are subject to o% VAT, pursuant to Section 15(g) of RA 9513.114 We agree. Section 15(g) ofRA 9513, which grants certain tax incentives toRE developers like EDC, provides: CHAPTER VII GENERAL INCENTIVES Section 15. Incentives for Renewable Energy Projects and Activities. - RE developers of renewable energy facilities, including hybrid systems, in proportion to and to the extent of the RE component, for both power and non-power applications, as duly certified by the DOE, in consultation with the BOI, shall be entitled to the following incentives: (g) Zero Percent Value-Added Tax Rate. - The sale of fuel or power generated from renewable sources of energy such as, but not limited to, biomass, solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, ocean p' energy and other emerging energy sources using technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen fuels, shall be subject to zero percent (o%) value-added tax (VAT), pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9337� '" Pars. 16-22, Petition for Review, supra at note I, pp. 12-13.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X All RE Developers shall be entitled to zero-rated value added tax on [their] purchases of local supply of goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction and installation of its plant facilities. This provision shall also apply to the whole process of exploring and developing renewable energy sources up to its conversion into power, including but not limited to the services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors."5 Moreover, Section 13(G)(b)(c), Rule 5 of Department Circular No. DC2oo9-o5-ooo8 dated 25 May 2009, or the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9513, reads: SEC. 13. Fiscal Incentives for Renewable Energy Projects and Activities DOE-certified existing and new RE Developers of RE facilities, including Hybrid Systems, in proportion to and to the extent of the RE component, for both Power and Non-Power Applications, shall be entitled to the following incentives: G. Zero Percent Value-Added Tax Rate The following transactions/activities shall be subject to zero percent (o%) value-added tax (VAT), pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 933T (b) Purchase of local goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction, and installation of the plant facilities ofRE Developers; and (c) Whole process of exploration and development of RE sources up to its conversion into power, including, but not limited to, the services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors."6 . h '� Based on the foregoing provisions, all RE developers are entitled f to zero-rated VAT on its purchases of local supply of goods, properties 115 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 116 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X and services needed for the development, construction and installation of plant facilities. Furthermore, the law declares that the VAT zero-rating applies to the whole process of exploring and developing RE sources up to its conversion into power, including but not limited to the services performed by subcontractors and/or contractors. Relative thereto, the same IRR of RA 9513 further tells the conditions in availing the incentives and other privileges under the said law. Section 18(A) and (B) thereof reads: SEC. 18. Conditions for Availment of Incentives and Other Privileges- A. Registration/ Accreditation with the DOE For purposes of entitlement to the incentives and privileges under the Act, existing and new RE Developers, and manufacturers, fabricators, and suppliers of locally-produced RE equipment shall register with the DOE, through the Renewable Energy Management Bureau (REMB). The following certifications shall be issued: (1) DOE Certificate ofRegistration- issued to an RE Developer holding a valid RE Service/Operating Contract. For existing RE projects, the new RE Service/Operating Contract shall pre-terminate and replace the existing Service Contract that theRE Developer has executed with the DOE subject to the Transitory Provision in Rule 13, Section 39� The DOE Certificate of Registration shall be issued immediately upon award of an RE Service/Operating Contract covering an existing or new RE project or upon approval of additional investment. Any investment added to ex1stmg RE projects shall be subject to prior approval by the DOE. B. Registration with the Board of Investments (BOI) The RE sector is hereby declared a priority investment sector h that will regularly form part of the country's Investment Priority f' Plan (IPP), unless declared otherwise by law.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x To qualify for the availment of the incentives under Sections 13 and 15 of this IRR, RE Developers and manufacturers, fabricators, and suppliers of locally-produced RE equipment, shall register with the BOI. The registration with the BOI shall be carried out through an agreement and an administrative arrangement between the BOI and the DOE, with the end-view of facilitating the registration of qualified RE facilities. The applications for registration shall be favorably acted upon immediately by the BOI, on the basis of the certification issued by the DOE. "7 As a corollary, Department Circular No. DC2021-12-0042"8, amending Section 18(C) of the IRR of RA 9513, confirms that RE developers are automatically qualified to avail of the incentives provided for in RA 9513 after securing a DOE COR, viz: SEC. 18. Conditions for Availment of Incentives and Other Privileges. - C. DOE ENDORSEMENT FOR AVAILMENT OF INCENTIVES AND DUTY-FREE IMPORTATIONS OF MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS RE Developers and manufacturers, fabricators, and suppliers of locally-produced RE equipment shall be AUTOMATICALLY qualified to avail of the incentives provided for in the Act, OTHER THAN THE INCENTIVE OF DUTY-FREE IMPORTATION OF QUALIFIED MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, PARTS AND COMPONENTS, after securing a Certificate of Registration from the DOE." 9 Thus, in order for the sales of services to an REdeveloper to qualify for VAT zero-rating as contemplated under RA 9513 and its IRR, the following conditions must be present: 117 Italics in the original text, emphasis and underscoring supplied. I "' PRESCRIBING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 13(E) AND IS( C) OF DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. DC2009�05-0008. ENTITLED RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. or 9513, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT 2008". 119 Emphasis in the original text and underscoring supplied.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X 1) TheRE developer must be registered with the DOE and the BOI; and 2) The local sales of goods, properties and services to the RE developer are needed for the development, construction, and installation of the RE developer's plant facilities and the whole process of exploration and development of RE sources up to its conversion into power. As for the first condition, petitioner complied when it submitted the following documents: Particulars Exhibit No. "P-12-1, t 0 "P-12-5 ni2o Certificate of Registration with the DOE "P-13, t 0 "P-14-1n121 Certification from the BOI Endorsement from the DOE to the BIR "P-16"122 BIR VAT Ruling No. 0218-2020 confirming that the sales to EDC are entitled to VAT Zero-rating "P -15 ,123 The foregoing documents prove that its client, EDC, Is an RE developer duly registered with the DOE and BOI. On the second condition, petitioner likewise complied with the same. It presented the contracts124 it entered into with EDC which show that for the subject period of claim, EDC engaged petitioner's services for directional drilling services for exploration and development of RE sources, i.e., geothermal wells. In fine, petitioner's sales of services to EDC for CY 2019, duly covered by BIR-registered VAT ORs, in the amount of i'121,996,68o.6s, qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 15(g) of RA 9513, in relation to Section w8(B)(3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. 120 Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 84-88. 121 ld., pp. 89-97. fl 122 Id., pp. I05- I06. 123 ld., pp. 98-104. 12~ Exhibits "P-24" to ''P-24-1 ", id., Volume II, pp. 823-954; Exhibits "P-24-2" to "P-24-3", id., pp. I95-208; and Exhibits "P-24-4" to "P-24-5", id., Volume II, pp. 8 I8-822.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X In sum, for purposes of the 2nd requisite, the Court finds that out of the total reported zero-rated sales/receipts of I'242,946,270.58, only the zero-rated receipts derived by petitioner from services rendered to EDC for CY 2019 in the amount ofP121,996,68o.6s qualify for VAT zero- rating. The dissent is of the view that different types of sales transactions impose distinct imprinting requirements. Specifically, Section 113(B)(2)(c)'25 of the NIRC ofi997, as amended, governs purely VAT zero- rated sales transactions, wherein it is required that the term "zero-rated sale" is written or imprinted prominently. On the other hand, Section 113(B)(2)(d)126 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, governs mixed-sale transactions wherein only a breakdown of the sale between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components is enough. In the instant case, since the subject sale transactions to EDC were purely VAT zero-rated receipts, a 'breakdown' is not enough, the term "zero-rated sale" must also be prominently imprinted or written. We beg to differ. Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Section 113(B)(2)127 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, apply to pure transactions, whereas subsection (d) of the same Section'28 applies to mixed-sale transactions. Should a seller be engaged in mixed-sale transactions, he or she or it is required to comply with subsection (d) only, and thus show the breakdown of sales to distinguish the taxable, exempt and the zero-rated components thereof. Nothing in subsection (d) requires the seller to again indicate the amount of tax or again print the term "exempt" or "zero-rated" on the same invoice (as this would be a redundant exercise). It is sufficient that a breakdown is presented to clearly segregate the sales. Conversely, should a seller be engaged in pure transactions, then he or she is required to comply with either subsections (a), (b), or (c) only, thus, show the amount of tax as a separate item, or imprint the term "exempt" or "zero-rated" whichever is applicable to the pure 125 Supra at pp. 20-21. I 126 !d. 127 !d. 128 !d.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x transaction. Such seller is not necessarily required to comply with subsection (d). It suffices that the applicable term or amount of tax is prominently imprinted or indicated to clearly distinguish the sale reflected on the invoice or OR. Simply stated, as long as the sale transaction type- whether subject to 12% oro% VAT or exempt- can be readily identified, the imprinting requirement is deemed satisfied. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the requirement, i.e., to prevent buyers from falsely claiming input VAT from their purchases when no VAT was actually paid to the prejudice of the State'2 9, without imposing undue burden on taxpayers. In addition, one of the canons of a sound tax system is administrative feasibility, which means that the tax system should be capable of being effectively administered and enforced with the least inconvenience to the taxpayer.'3� Certainly, to require the seller to print the terms "exempt" or "zero-rated" again on all copies of the same invoice or receipt, when the nature of the transaction and its classification as either exempt, zero-rated or subject to 12% VAT can already be ascertained through the breakdown provided therein would run counter to the principle of administrative feasibility . Verily, a 'breakdown' conspicuously showing that the said sale transaction is zero-rated substantially complies with the imprinting requirement under subsection (c). Accordingly, the amounts prominently written on the line directly parallel to the term "VAT ZERO RATED" clearly represent zero-rated sales. FOURTH (4TH) REQUISITE: THE CREDITABLE INPUT TAX DUE OR PAID MUST BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH SALES, EXCEPT THE TRANSITIONAL INPUT TAX, TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH INPUT TAX HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED AGAINST THE OUTPUT TAX. 129 See Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines (formerly Matsushita Business A4achine Corporation ofthe Philippines) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. ' 130 178090. 08 February 2010. f See Renata V. Diaz and Aurora Ma. F. Timbo/ v. The Secrela!JI of Finance and the Commissioner of!nternal Revenue, G.R. No. 193007, 19 July 201 I.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x To satisfy the fourth requisite, the following conditions must concur: a. 1st condition: the input taxes are due or paid; b. 2nd condition: the input taxes claimed are attributable to zero- rated or effectively zero-rated sales and where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales; c. 3rd condition: the input taxes are not transitional input taxes; and, d. 4th condition: the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters. Petitioner complied with the fa condition as its input taxes do not appear to be transitional input taxes since they operate to benefit only newly VAT-registered persons. Also, petitioner is deemed to have complied with the 4th condition after it was established that it deducted the input VAT claim off'w,523.339�72 as a "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed" (line 23D) in its Amended Quarterly VAT Return for the 4'h quarter of CY 2o2o'3' preventing thus the carry-over of the said amount unto the succeeding taxable quarters. Accordingly, the subject claim no longer formed part of the excess input VAT of 'l"n,2m,26L38'32 as of the end of the 4'h quarter of CY 2020, to be carried over to the succeeding quarters. As to the 1st condition, petitioner claims that for the 1'' to 4th quarters of CY 2019, it had a total amount of input VAT of'l"w,523,339�72 arising from the amortized portion of its input VAT on capital goods purchases exceeding '1"1 million, domestic purchases and importation of goods other than capital goods, domestic purchases of services and services rendered by nonresidents, which is the subject of the present claim for refund, as shown below:'33 131 Supra at note 32. 132 Line 29, id. 133 Supra at p. 3.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x Source oflnputVAT I 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3'd Quarter 4'h Quarter CYzo19 Current input VAT I'46,899-38 Domestic Purchases of Goods l'll,7<J7-3'i 1'27,J88.81 - 1'36a5o.n 1'122>4"�65 other than Capital Goods Importation of Goods other - - 930,699�24 902,994-00 902,994-00 than Capital Goods 1,646,368.19 P2,623,966.81 Domestic Purchases of - Services 541,571.88 7<;6,470.12 1,094,09'l.71 3,122,814-95 - Services Rendered by Non- P- residents 1,68s,763.52 1,810,029-95 1'2,621,966.81 1,019,9�4-54 6,162,066.20 /3,053>342�36 P10,510, no.Bo Subtotal 1'2,239,132�75 P2,593,888.88 Deferred input VAT amortizedfor the period Input Tax Deferred on Capital Goods Exceeding P1Million from Previous Quarter 1'1),008.92 1'5,203�56 - 1'18,212-48 Less: Input Tax on Purchases of Capital Goods exceeding 5,201-56 - - ';,201.';6 P1Million deferred for the f7,Bo5.36 P13,oo8.92 succeeding period Ps,2o3.56 P- 1'10,523>339�72 Subtotal 1'3,053>342�36 TOTAL INPUT VAT 1'2,246�938.11 1'2>599,092-44 For purposes of satisfying the 1st condition, it is of crucial importance that petitioner provides documents to support its declaration that the input VAT claimed during the subject period was actually due or paid in accordance with Section no(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended134, which provides: SEC. no. Tax Credits. - (A) Creditable Input Tax. - (1) Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued in accordance with Section u3 hereof on the following transactions shall be creditable against the output tax: a. Purchase or importation of goods: 1. For sale; or n. For conversion into or intended to form part of a finished product for sale including packaging materials; or n1. For use as supplies in the course of business; or 1v. For use as materials supplied in the sale of service; or v. For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is allowed under this Code. b. Purchase of services on which a value-added tax has actually been paid. 134 Prior to the changes brought about by Republic Act No. 11976 or "Ease of Paying Taxes Act". I

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x (2) The input tax on domestic purchase or importation of goods or properties by a VAT-registered person shall be creditable: a. To the purchaser upon consummation of sale and on importation of goods or properties; and b. To the importer upon payment of the value-added tax prior to the release of the goods from the custody of the Bureau of Customs. Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (P1,ooo,ooo): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (s) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, fUrther, That the amortization of the input VAT shall only be allowed until December 31, 2021 after which taxpayers with unutilized input VAT on capital goods purchased or imported shall be allowed to apply the same as scheduled until fully utilized. Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or free.'35 The above provrswns are implemented by Sections 4.110-1 to 4.110-3 ofRR No.16-o5, as amended by RR No. 13-18136, which provide as follows: SEC. 4.no-I. Credits For Input Tax. -'Input tax' means the VAT due on or paid by a VAT-registered person on importation of goods or local purchases of goods, properties, or services, including lease or use of properties, in the course of his trade or business. It shall also include the transitional input tax and the presumptive input tax determined in accordance with Sec. m of the Tax Code. It includes input taxes which can be directly attributed to transactions subject to the VAT plus a ratable portion of any input tax which cannot be directly attributed to either the taxable or exempt activity. Any input tax on the following transactions evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued by a VAT-registered person in 135 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 136 Regulations Implementing the Value-Added Tax Provisions under the Republic Act (RA) No. !0963, or the "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN)," Further Amending Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005 (Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005), as Amended.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x accordance with Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code shall be creditable against the output tax: a. Purchase or importation of goods 1. For sale; or z. For conversion into or intended to form part of a finished product for sale, including packaging materials; or 3� For use as supplies in the course of business; or 4� For use as raw materials supplied in the sale of services; or 5� For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is allowed under the Tax Code. b. Purchase of real properties for which a VAT has actually been paid; c. Purchase of services in which a VAT has actually been paid; d. Transactions "deemed sale" under Sec. w6 (B) of the Tax Code; e. Transitional input tax allowed under Sec. 4.m (a) of these Regulations; f. Presumptive input tax allowed under Sec. 4.m (b) of these Regulations; g. Transitional input tax credits allowed under the transitory and other provisions of these Regulations. SEC. 4.110-2. Persons Who Can Avail ofthe Input Tax Credit.- The input tax credit on importation of goods or local purchases of goods, properties or services by a VAT-registered person shall be creditable: a. To the importer upon payment ofVAT prior to the release ofgoods from customs custody; b. To the purchaser of the domestic goods or properties upon consummation of the sale; or c. To the purchaser of services or the lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee. SEC. 4.110-3. Claims for Input Tax on Depreciable Goods. - Where a VAT-registered person purchases or imports capital goods, which are depreciable assets for income tax purposes, the aggregate acquisition cost of which (exclusive of VAT) in a calendar month exceeds One Million pesos (Pr,ooo,ooo.oo), regardless of the acquisition cost of each capital good, shall be claimed as credit against output tax in the following manner: (a) If the estimated useful life of a capital good is five (s) years or more- The input tax shall be spread evenly over a period of sixty (6o) months and the claim for input tax credit will commence in the calendar month when the capital good is acquired. The total input taxes on purchases or importations of this type of capital

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X goods shall be divided by 6o and the quotient will be the amount to be claimed monthly. (b) If the estimated useful life of a capital good is less than five (s) years -The input tax shall be spread evenly on a monthly basis by dividing the input tax by the actual number of months comprising the estimated useful life of the capital good. The claim for input tax credit shall commence in the calendar month that the capital goods were acquired. Where the aggregate acquisition cost (exclusive of VAT) of the existing or finished depreciable capital goods purchased or imported during any calendar month does not exceed One million pesos (P1,ooo,ooo.oo), the total input taxes will be allowable as credit against output tax in the month of acquisition. (c) The amortization of the input VAT shall only be allowed until December 31, 2021 after which taxpayers with unutilized input VAT on capital goods purchased or imported shall be allowed to apply the same as scheduled until fully utilized: Provided, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee. m Meanwhile, Sections 4.11o-8(a) and (d) and 4.114-2(b) of RR No. 16-os, as amended by RR No. 04-07'38, provide for the substantiation requirements of input tax credits, as follows: SEC. 4.11o-8. Substantiation ofInput Tax Credits.- a. Input taxes for the importation of goods or the domestic purchase of goods, properties or services is made in the course of trade or business, whether such input taxes shall be credited against zero- rated sale, non-zero-rated sales, or subjected to the s% Final Withholding VAT, must be substantiated and supported by the following documents, and must be reported in the information returns required to be submitted to the Bureau: (1) For the importation of goods - import entry or other equivalent document showing actual payment of VAT on the imported goods. 137 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. ' 138 Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of2005.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X (2) For the domestic purchase of goods and properties invoice showing the information required under Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code. (3) For the purchase of real property- public instrument i.e., deed of absolute sale, deed of conditional sale, contract/agreement to sell, etc., together with VAT invoice issued by the seller. (4) For the purchase of services - official receipt showing the information required under Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code. A cash register machine tape issued to a registered buyer shall constitute valid proof of substantiation of tax credit only if it shows the information required under Sees. 113 and 237 of the Tax Code. d. Input tax from payments made to non-residents (such as for services, rentals and royalties) shall be supported by a copy of the Monthly Remittance Return of Value[-]Added Tax Withheld (BIR Form 16oo) filed by the resident payor in behalf of the non-resident evidencing remittance of VAT due which was withheld by the payor. SEC. 4�114-2. Withholding of VAT on Government Money Payments and Payments to Non-Residents. - (b) The government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including GOCCs, as well as private corporations, individuals, estates and trusts, whether large or non- large taxpayers, shall withhold twelve percent (12%) VAT, starting February 1, 2006, with respect to the following payments: (1) Lease or use of properties or property rights owned by non-residents; and (2) Other services rendered in the Philippines by non-residents. In remitting VAT withheld, the withholding agent shall use BIR Form No. 16oo Remittance Return ofVAT and Other Percentage Taxes Withheld. I VAT withheld and paid for the non-resident recipient (remitted using BIR Form No.16oo), which VAT is passed on to the

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X resident withholding agent by the non-resident recipient of the income, may be claimed as input tax by said VAT-registered withholding agent upon filing his own VAT Return, subject to the rule on allocation of input tax among taxable sales, zero-rated sales and exempt sales. The duly filed BIR Form No. 16oo is the proof or documentary substantiation for the claimed input tax or input VAT.'39 The documents also need to comply with the invoicing requirements'40 provided under Sections 113(A)(1), (B)(1) and (2)(c) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Sections 4�113-1(A)(1), (B)(1) and (2)(c) ofRR No. 16-05, as amended. To support the above input VAT, petitioner presented, among others, its suppliers' ORs and invoices'4', importation documents'4\ and "Monthly Remittance Return ofValue-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes Withheld" (BIR Forms No. 16oo)'43, which were all examined by ICPA Querido. Upon review of the ICPA Report and Supplemental ICPA Report, and petitioner's supporting documents, We find that input VAT in the amount of P3,971,685.54 must be disallowed for failure to meet the substantiation and invoicing requirements, detailed in the following tabulation: Supplier's Name S u m m a r y '44 / Exhibit OR/SI Number OR/SI Date Input VAT No. Claim Folder'45 I Reference l'856.o, Domestic purchases ofservices supported by VA TORs but the nature ofservices was not 9.427�58 indicated therein; billing statements/invoices referred to in the ORs were not presented in 68.437�54 evidence HP PPS PHILIPPINES INC. A-1 "P-37'' OR oo3249 june 26, 2019 !CO ASIAPACIFIC PHILIPPINES INC. A-2 "P-4o" OR 0137 Feb. 20, 2019 OILSERVE TRADING- LORE MAR A SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-41 " 0Rooo8 Aug. 7, 2019 139 Italics in the original text, emphasis and underscoring supplied. 140 Supra at pp. 22-23. 141 Exhibits "P-37" to "P-245", Annexes A-1 to A-21, USB. !42 Exhibits "P-246" to "P-407'', Annex A-22 and Exhibit "P-557'', id. 143 Exhibits "P-408" to "P-429", Annex A-23, id. 144 !CPA Supplemental Report (Exhibit "P-36-3"), Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 604-638. 145 USB (Exhibit "P-36-5").

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-42 " OR ooo9 Aug. 14, 2019 17,861:54 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-41" OR oon Sep~ 4, 2019 6J,210.98 "P-44 " OR oo13 OILSERVE "P-45 " OR oo14 TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 Sep. n, 2019 203.487.84 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 Sep, 18, 2019 62,246.88 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMARA. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-46" ORo01'5 Sep. 2'), 2019 2'5,589.3'i OILSERVE TRADING- LORE MAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-47'' ORo018 Oct. 19, 2019 '51-431.'55 Oct. 2 3, 2019 ll,370.00 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-48" OR oo2o OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMARA. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-49 " OR oo21 Oct, 30, 2019 22,68o.84 "P:5o" OR oo22 OILSERVE "P-'5!" ORoo26 TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 Nov. 6, 2012 40,687�74 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMARA. SAN PEDRO A-2 Dec. n, 2019 333.128.82 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-s2" OR oo27 Dec. 18, 2019 22,9')0.')2 "P-53 " OR ooz8 OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 Dec. 25, 2019 13,36i.n OILSERVE TRADING- LOREMAR A. SAN PEDRO A-2 "P-s4" ORoo29 Dec. 31, 2019 85,148.28 "P-ss" OR MKoonso21 May 15, 2019 SGV&CO A-2 "P- 06" OR MKoon9983 june 27, 2019 .'3�396�92 "P-si' OR MKoon9984 june 27, 2019 31,808.28 SGV&CO A-2 "P-'58" OR MKoo12'5256 Nov. 6, 2019 31,808.28 "P-sg " OR MKoo126489 Dec. 4, 2019 31,928.04 SGV&CO A-2 r 28,233�60;, SGV&CO A-2 SGV&CO A-2

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X OILSERVE A-1 "P-6{ OR oo10 Aug, 28,2019 _27,194. 7l_ TRADING- LOREMARA SAN A-3 "P-62" ORomy Oct. 2, 2019 101,844-91 PEDRO A-3 OILSERVE A-3 "P-63" ORom9 Oct. 16, 2019 1,792.U TRADING- LOREMAR A SAN A-3 "P-64" OR 0021 Nov. q, 2019 32,169.52 PEDRO A-4 OILSERVE A-4 "P-65" OR oo25 Dec. 4, 2019 2?,825-73 TRADING- A-4 "P-66" OR 4002137 Oct. 7, 2019 LOREMAR A SAN A-4 "P-67" OR 4034397 Dec. 5. 2019 212.26 PEDRO A-4 "P-68" OR 4035727 Nov. 21, 2019 OILSERVE A-4 "P-69" OR 4"}8979 Dec. 2, 2019 30 ..0 0 TRADING- A-4 "P-7o " OR 4065488 Dec. 27, 2019 79-20 LOREMAR A SAN A-4 "P-y6" Aug. 1, 2019 79-20 PEDRO A-4 "P-77" OR 0476 Oct. 15, 2019 30.00 OILSERVE A-4 "P-y8" ORo486 Oct. 30, 2019 39.903.85 TRADING- "P-79" ORo488 Dec. 25, 2019 2,813-52 LOREMAR A SAN A-:2_ "P-So" OR 0497 Dec. 5� 2019 36,5_93-29 PEDRO OR 0494 4,689�96 DHL EXPRESS A-s 8,702.76 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-Si' OR o10'i768 july 10, 2019 1,144-00 DHL EXPRESS "P-8z" OR oo1021 Feb. 28, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) 822.62 CORP. DHL EXPRESS I' (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, INC. 25HP PPS PHILIPPINES INC.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x HP PPS PHILIPPINES INC. A-s "P-8," OR 003188 Apr. 17, 2019 761.4s "P-84" OR o4s3 Feb. 28, 2019 34.78TS3 TECHNOLOGY "P-8')" OR 0459 34.787-S3 "P-86" ORo46s Mar. 27, 2019 14.787-'ii EXPORTS "P-87" OR o468 34�787-S3 "P-88" ORo473 Mav '� 2019 34.787-S3 SERVICES CORP. A-o; "P-89" ORo492 Mav 29,2019 34�787-S3 "P-98" OR o36772 June 26, 2019 TECHNOLOGY OR 010939 Nov. 28, 2019 1,529.03 "P-toz" OR os4S Jan. 31, 2019 14,S20.00 EXPORTS OR os46 Feb. 8, 2019 "P-104 " OR os47 Feb. n, 2019 151.02 SERVICES CORP. A-'i "P-10s " OR os48 Feb. 20, 2019 "P-106" OR 0550 Feb. 27, 2019 24,616.85 TECHNOLOGY "P-toi' OR 0551 Mar. 6, 2019 S,097-41 ''P-1o8" OR oss2 Mar. zo, 2019 486.oo EXPORTS OR 0555 Mar. 27, 2019 "P-tog" OR o5s6 Apr. 3, 2019 52,603-7S SERVICES CORP. A-o; 0Ro'5'57 May 1, 2019 7,88r.6o "P-uo " OR O'iS9 Mar. 8, 2019 100,]13.24 TECHNOLOGY "P-111 " Mav "� 2010 7o.ssi.81 "P-nz" Mav 22,2019 EXPORTS "P-rn" 4,080.00 "P-114 " SERVICES CORP. A-s ')1,01l.'j6 25,802.17 TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. A-s TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. A-s QUISUMBING TORRES LAW OFFICES A-7 SISON CORILLO PARONE &CO. A-7 OILSERVE TRADING -LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING - LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING - LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING -LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING - LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING - LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-o O!LSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 "P-nl)" 0Ro')6o May 29,2019 26,714.63 "P-n6" OR o562 june 12, 2019 6,750.00 OILSERVE "P-ni' ORo56"J june 19, 2019 89,077.'JO "P-n8" OR o'i64 june 26, 2019 63,464-41 TRADING - LARA "P-n9 " OR o'i65 july'\, 2019 36,031.08 0Ros66 july 17, 2019 41,089.92 MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 "P-120 " OR 0567 july 31, 2019 16,188.71 OR os68 Aug. 7, 2019 OILSERVE "P-121 " 698.52 OR 0542 jan. 30, 2019 34,56o.6o TRADING- LARA "P-122" Mar. 13, 2019 16,7o6.so OR 0549 Sep. 4, 2019 39.502.19 MAYG.AGUILAR A-9 "P-123 " OR o<;6q May 16, 2019 OR 1716'i3 june 26, 2019 492.00 OILSERVE "P-124" OR 175624 july 03, 2019 OR 176s64 Sep. 4, 2019 720,00 TRADING- LARA "P-125" OR 18>534 Sep. 18, 2019 "P-151 " OR 185'i'll Oct. '4� 2019 708.oo MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 "P-154 " OR 188974 Nov. 6, 2019 "P-15<;" OR 191496 Nov. 27, 2019 624-00 OILSERVE "P-1s6" OR 194'i94 Dec. 12, 2019 "P-1<;7" OR 19678o Mar. 6, 20IQ 792.00 TRADING - LARA "P-158" ORo45'i Apr. 10, 2019 ')64.00 "P-1c;.o" OR o46'l MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 912.00 "P-160" OILSERVE 36o.'oo "P-161" TRADING- LARA "P 16~" 216.oo "P-164" MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 420.00 OILSERVE 5,216.64 TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-9 OILSERVE TRADING- LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-10 OILSERVE TRADING� LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-w OILSERVE TRADING � LARA MAY G. AGUILAR A-10 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. A-12 TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. A-12

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Input VAT claim on domestic purchases ofservices supported by VAT ORs dated outside the period ofclaim DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. A-4 "P-71 " OR 4069793 Jan. 2, 2020 30.00 DHL EXPRESS 30.00 30.00 (PHILIPPINES) A-4 "P-72 " OR 4070118 jan. 6, 2020 CORP. 3�913�91 DHL EXPRESS 78,660.00 22,go8.5o (PHILIPPINES) A-4 "P-73 " OR 4070314 jan. 8, 2020 14,601.60 CORP. 20,770�93 Domestic purchase ofgoods supported by VAT invoice dated outside the period ofclaim 4�737�18 9.989.6'} OILSERVE 30,518.60 23.3n74 TRADING - LARA z6,886.o8 8,956Ao MAY G. AGUILAR A-19 "P-233" SI 578 Oct. 17, 2018 32,528.77 Domestic purchases ofservices supported by VAT ORs but petitioner's address indicated 3,288.oo 1,344.00 therein is different from that shown in its BIR Certificate ofRegistration (COR); nature of f' services was not indicated and the billing statements/invoices referred to in the ORs were not presented in evidence R.G. MANABAT & CO. A-1 "P-38" OR 002'J924 Aug. 8, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-2 "P-39 " OR 14807 May 1, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-3 "P-6o" OR 14811 jan. 30, 2019 !CO ASIAPACIFIC PHILIPPINES INC A-4 "P-74 " OR 0138 Jan. 24, 2019 !CO ASIAPACIFIC PHILIPPINES INC A-4 "P-75" OR 0139 Feb. 21, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-92 " OR 148o8 Dec. 4. 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-93" OR 14809 Nov. 6, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-94" OR 14810 Oct. 9, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-95 " OR 14813 Dec. 11, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-96" OR 14814 Nov. 27, 2019 FERVID INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC A-7 "P-97 " OR 14815 july 31, 2019 BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, INC A-12 "P-139 " OR 0104818 May 28,2019 BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING A-12 "P-140 " OR 0105531 june 28, 2019

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x INTERNATIONAL, INC. BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, INC. A-12 "P-141" OR 0107on Sept. n, 2019 2,688.oo BUSINESS 1.344�00 PROCESS 1,344-00 360.00 OUTSOURCING 144�00 INTERNATIONAL, 912.00 72.00 INC. A-12 "P-142 " OR 0107435 Sep. 30, 2019 2,280.00 BUSINESS 144:oo PROCESS 288.oo 726.oo OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, 1,o8o.oo INC. A-12 "P-143" OR 0108616 Dec. 3, 2019 1'),832�38 15,832-38 RAJAH TRAVEL 16,040�35 1'),872.72 CORPORATION A-12 "P-144 " OR 159976 Feb.9, 2019 48.940.80 RAJAH TRAVEL 6),000.00 CORPORATION A-12 "P -14:t5" OR 155389 jan. 4, 2019 16,031.93 RAJAH TRAVEL A-12 "P-146" OR 158546 jan. 30, 2019 1,344-00 CORPORATION 1,)44�00 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-147 " OR 161678 Feb. 21, 2019 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-148" OR 16004o Mar. 20, 2019 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-149" OR 166290 Mar. 27, 2019 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-15o" OR 162566 Apr. 3, 2019 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-1ISo2'' OR 171656 May 2, 2019 RAJAH TRAVEL CORPORATION A-12 "P-153'' OR 171'513 May 8, 2019 Domestic purchases ofservices supported by VA TORs but without the phrase "THIS INVOICE/RECEIPT SHALL BE VALID FOR FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE PERMIT TO USE" as required under RR 10- 2015, as amended by RR 16-2018; nature of services was not indicated and the billiny statements/invoices referred to in the ORs were not J!!Csented in evidence SGV&CO A-6 "P-9o" OR MKoou8151 jan. 16, 2020 SGV&CO A-6 "P-gl" OR MKoou8152 jan. 16, 2020 SGV&CO A-7 "P-99" 0 R MKoo112986 Apr. 12, 2019 SGV&CO A-7 "P-1oo" OR MKoo112987 AjJr. 12, 2019 SGV&CO A-7 "P-1o1 " OR MKoon8658 june 14, 2019 SGV&CO A-8 "P-Ioj" OR MKoon3004 Apr. 12, 2019 SGV&CO A-12 "P-162" OR MKoono'i92 Mar. 7, 2019 Domestic purchases ofservices supported by documents other than VAT ORs BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, Billing Statement (BS) oo23129 INC. A-n "P-126" Dec. 1, 2018 BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING INTERNATIONAL, INC. A-n "P-127" BS 0024414 Jan. 1, 2019

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x BUSINESS A-n "P-128" BS 0025277 Feb. 1, 2019 1,344-00 PROCESS A-n Statement of OUTSOURCING A-n "P-129" Account (SOA) Apr. 17, 2019 420.00 INTERNATIONAL, A-n "P -1 30! " ooooo01o9639858 Sep. 17, 2019 420.00 INC. A-u "P-131" Oct. 17, 2019 420,00 A-n "P-132" SOA Nov. 17, 2019 420.00 PLOTINC. A-n "P-111" oooooom823688 Mar. 27, 2019 A-n "P-n4" Mav 27,2019 7.199-70 PLOT INC. A-n SOA 6,900.00 A-n "P -�1115'" oooooon216o788 jan. 23, 2019 34�787-53 PLOTINC. A-n 34.787-53 A-n SOA 34.787-53 PLOT INC. A-13 34�787-53 QUISUMBING A-13 000000112786332 TORRES A-13 44-22 ROXASCRUZ A-n 51 9515057965 39-60 TAGLE AND CO. A-13 218-96 TECHNOLOGY A-13 SOA 12782 994�95 EXPORTS A-13 43�56 SERVICES CORP. A-n Billing Invoice (BI) 1,629.01 TECHNOLOGY o6n 39�.60 EXPORTS 39.60 SERVICES CORP. "P-136" BI o615 jan. 31, 2019 161.37 TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS "P-137'' BI 0771 Aug. 30, 2019 f SERVICES CORP. TECHNOLOGY "P-118" Bl o8o2 Oct. 2, 2019 EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. "P-16<( BI Do5201418 jan. 26, 2019 DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) "P-166" BI D05240950 Feb. 22, 2019 CORP. DHL EXPRESS "P-167'' Bl Do5W9530 Apr. 5, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) "P-168" Apr. 10, 2019 CORP. Bl DHL EXPRESS MNLooo1744399 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-169" BI Do517107o May 0, 2019 DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) "P-17o" BI MNLoo017')ll16 May 13, 2019 CORP. DHL EXPRESS "P-171" BI Do'i410755 May 17,2019 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-172" BI Do5481043 June 9, 2019 DHL EXPRESS "P-171'' BI Do'i'i24936 June zs, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x DHL EXPRESS A-13 "P-174" BI Do5108377A july 3, 2019 30.00 (PHILIPPINES) A-13 39.6o CORP. A-13 "P-17';" Bl Do'i'i19o2,A july 3, 2019 39.60 DHL EXPRESS A-13 39.60 (PHILIPPINES) A-11 "P-n6" BI Dos5'i1373 july 4, 2019 39.6o CORP. A-13 110.78 DHL EXPRESS A-13 "P-177 " BI Do5574483 july 12, 2019 210.63 (PHILIPPINES) A-13 2,098.84 CORP. A-13 "P-178" BI Doss84782 july 14, 2019 g69.12 DHL EXPRESS A-13 "P-179 " BI Doss8so69 july 14, 2019 39.Eo (PHILIPPINES) A-13 2,846�34 CORP. A-13 "P-r8o" BI MNLooo1792338 july 22, 2019 39.6o DHL EXPRESS A-13 july 22, 2019 39.60 (PHILIPPINES) A-13 "P-181" BI july 29, 2019 370-39 CORP. A-13 MNLoo01792339 39.60 DHL EXPRESS A-13 39.60 (PHILIPPINES) A-13 "P-r8z" Bl 39.60 CORP. MNLooo1796348 DHL EXPRESS A-13 48o,2il (PHILIPPINES) A-13 "P-183" Bl Dos669037 Aug. w, 2019 391.04 CORP. DHL EXPRESS "P-184" Bl MNLoo01801117 Aug. 12, 2019 \ (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-r8s" Bl Dos687978 Aug. 18, 2019 I DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) "P-186" BI Do5694142 Aug. 21, 2019 CORP. DHL EXPRESS "P-187'' BJ MNLooo1813419 Aug. 26, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-r88" BI Do573401o Sep. 6, 2019 DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) "P-189" Bl Do5776o94 Sep. 22, 2019 CORP. DHL EXPRESS "P-119<0" Bl Do'i7978'i'i Oct. 1, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. "P-191 " SOAAVS1481 Sep. 23, 2019 DHL EXPRESS "P-192 " SOAAVS1492 Oct. 1, 2019 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. GOLD VENTURE LEASE & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. GOLD VENTURE LEASE &

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. HP PPS PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 "P-193 " BS oo12688 Nov. 20, 2018 790-43 "P-194 " BS 0013773 Feb. 27, 2019 718.59 HP PPS "P-195 " BS 0014m Mar. 25, 2019 773.20 june 18, 2019 715.88 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 july 9, 2019 726.82 Aug. 19, 2019 716.75 HP PPS Oct. 16, 2019 698�77 Aug. 27, 2010 1,445�28 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 Oct. 28, 2019 15,604.97 june 4, 2019 293�28 HP PPS june 18, 2019 jl2.8j Sep. 9, 2019 293.28 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 "P-1o6" BS oo15272 Sep. 6, 2019 293�28 "P-197" BS oo107oo HP PPS "P-198" BS o016o62 Feb. 10, 2019 207.63 39.60 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 Aug. 5, 2019 71.18 july 29, 2019 287.77 HP PPS july 29, 2019 4�155�93 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 1,726.. 10 HP PPS 1,851.61 PHILIPPINES INC. A-13 "P-190" BS 0016643 9,69o.oo PICASSO RENTAL MANAGEMENT A-13 "P-2oo " SOA 1420 CORP BILL SGV&CO A-13 "P-201 " PHLowo313797 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT A-13 "P-202 " BS 0481 CORPORATION Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-13 "P-203 " BS 0485 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT A-13 "P-204" BS oo;01 CORPORATION Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-n "P-2o'i" BS ooo5 Domestic purchases ofservices without supporting VA TORs DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. A-14 MNLoo01632672 DHL EXPRESS A-14 Doo;224337 (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS A-14 Do48106ooC (PHILIPPINES) CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) A-14 MNL1ooo8792')0 CORP. DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. A-14 MNLoo01801979 DHL EXPRESS (PHILIPPINES) CORP. A-14 MNLoo01796149 DHL EXPRESS MNLooo1796347 (PHILIPPINES) A-14 CORP. A-14 1900013200000090 OILSERVE TRADING

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X OILSERVE A-14 583 540.00 TRADING A-14 9,69o.oo OILSERVE A-14 1900003400000190 9,6()0.00 TRADING A-14 OILSERVE A-14 1900022500000090 1,020.00 TRADING A-14 OILSERVE A-14 4~ 9,69o.oo TRADING A-14 9,69o.oo OILSERVE A-14 190003'J300000070 9,69o.oo TRADING A-14 9.69o.oo OILSERVE A-14 1900043900000070 g,69o.oo TRADING A-14 9,69o.oo OILSERVE A-14 1900054700000080 TRADING A-14 19ooo6450ooooo8o 420.00 OILSERVE 420.00 TRADING A-14 1900087000000090 OILSERVE 420.00 TRADING A-14 19000766oooooo8o 420.00 OILSERVE A-14 TRADING A-14 11007~592 1,100.20 PLOT INC. A-14 1105009'iO 146.64 PLOT INC. 110916891 q88.gg A-14 111506484 PLOT INC. 482.14 A-14 1085 PLOT INC. A-14 29,107�97 A-14 1099 Mar. 8, 2019 PICASSO RENTAL A-14 14,280.00 MANAGEMENT A-14 421816 Oct. 10, 2019 CORP. A-14 Oct. 31, 2019 n,148.oo PICASSO RENTAL A-14 219239 Nov. 29, 2019 MANAGEMENT 4,068.94 CORP. A-14 10045 Oct. 18, 2017 RAJAH TRAVEL 10,208.07 CORPORATION 0010173B RICOH 92.80 PHILIPPINES INC 10408 SALVADOR 7020 110-48 LLANILLO & 6121 Bw:oo BERNARDO 8762 SALVADOR 8610 16.71 LLANJLLO & SI O')'J')lA BERNARDO 8131 1,938.oo SALVADOR LLANILLO & 403 /l' BERNARDO SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC SUPPLY OILFIELD SERVICES INC TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS SERVICES CORP. A-14 ')89 Nov. 22, 2018 24~02.85 TECHNOLOGY 4,S83.71 EXPORTS 313.21 488.8o SERVICES CORP. A-14 588 Nov. 22, 2016 488.8o 322.61 VALERO GRAND 273�73 293�28 SUITES 1,309�98 586.56 MANAGEMENT 291.28 _312.83 CORP A-14 16584 586. 56 322.61 Y2 RENTAL 2.978�53 MANAGEMENT 712.')0 CORPORATION A-14 403 2,828'57 2,351.79 Y2 RENTAL f' MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 400 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 412 Yz RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 417 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 4'>7 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 443 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 441 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 446 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 479 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 477 Y2 RENTAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION A-14 476 Domestic purchases ofgoods supported by VAT invoices dated outside the validity period of_ATP LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-15 "P-2o6" SI 0102 Dec. 27, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-213" SI oo55 july 3, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL A-17 "P-214 " Sloo67 july 6, 2019 MERCHANDISE LAURENCE KIER GENERAL A-17 "P-215" Sloo68 july 6, 2019 MERCHANDISE

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-216" SI oo71 Aug. 4, 2019 3�996-43 1,jj'J.93 LAURENCE KIER 3,616.o8 5,208.75 GENERAL 5.071.61 '1.799�29 MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-217 " SI oo73 Sep. 2, 2019 '),j16.97 2,7oB.ss LAURENCE KIER 90').j6 GENERAL 803.')7 6,471A1 MERCHANDISE A-n "P-218" SI oo76 Sep. 4, 2019 2,')22.57 LAURENCE KIER 1,435�72 GENERAL 1,j68.J3 1,009.29 MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-219 " Sloo78 Aug. 9, 2019 2,475coo 9,214-29 LAURENCE KIER 12,094�14 GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-zzo" Sl oo79 Sep. 5, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-n "P-221" Sloo8o Sep. 21, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-222" SI oo81 Sep. 21, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-n "P-223" Sloo82 Sep. 21, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-224" Sloo84 Sep. 21, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-n "P-225 " Sloo89 Nov. 10, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-226" SI oog1 Nov. 10, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-zz7'' SI oo92 Nov. 10, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-17 "P-zz8" swoq6 Nov. 24, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL A-n "P-zzg " Sloo97 Nov. 24, 2019 MERCHANDISE LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-n "P-2w" SI 0098 Nov. 24, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL MERCHANDISE A-21 "P-244 " SI oo6s july 3, 2019 LAURENCE KIER GENERAL A-21 "P-245" SI 0072 Aug. 9, 2019 MERCHANDISE Domestic purchase o{qoods supported by collection receipt instead ofVAT invoice HP PPS Collection Receipt 20756 PHILIPPINES INC. A-20 "P-243" june 19, 2019 Importation ofgoods other than capital goods supported by invoice, Bureau ofCustoms (BOC) OR, and ROC Certification but without Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration (IEIRD) or Single Administrative Document (SAD)

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x BOC Form No. 38- HALLIBURTON A GROUP CANADA A-22 "P-247 " 01896972215 jan. 22, 2019 n,n6.oo 2,956.oo BOC Form No. 38- '140,68')-48 HALLIBURTON A-22 "P-404" A Nov. 19, 2019 IJ,008.92 FAR EAST LTD 01905584822 1'3,97'�685�54 Services rendered by non-residents supported by BIR Form No. 16oo, EFPS Payment Details but date ofVATpayment is outside the period ofclaim HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, HALLIBURTON DRILLING SERVICES, HALLIBURTON TECHNOLOGY "P-428", SERVICES A-23" "P-429" Jan. 10, 2020 Amortization ofInput VAT on capital goods purchases exceeding PIM without supporting VAT invoice ISUZU PHILIPPINES A-24 SI 844 TOTAL DISALLOWED INPUT VAT Based on the foregoing, relative to petitioner's compliance with the 1st condition, out of the P10,523,339�72 total input VAT claim, only the amount of P6,5SI,654�18 represents petitioner's valid and substantiated input VAT, as computed below: Input VAT Claim !'!0,523,339�72 Less: Disallowanced Input VAT 3.971,68s.s4 Valid and Substantiated Input VAT P6.ss�,6s4-�S As for the 2nd condition, since petitiOner only had zero-rated sales/receipts in the period of claim, the corresponding valid and substantiated input VAT ofP6,55I,654-18 is attributable to its zero-rated sales/receipts. However, as previously intimated, petitioner was able to properly substantiate only the amount ofP12I,gg6,68o.6s out of its total declared zero-rated sales/receipts ofP242,946,z7o.s8. Thus, with regard to petitioner's compliance with the 2nd condition, only the amount of P3,289,945.8o represents its valid and substantiated input VAT attributable to its valid zero-rated sales/receipts of Prz1,gg6,68o.6s, as computed below: Valid input VAT attributable to reported zero-rated !'6,ssr,6s4.r8 sales/receipts 121,996,68o.6s Multiplied by: Valid zero-rated receipts 242,946,270�58 Divided by: Total reported zero-rated sales/receipts

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION X--------------------------------------------------------------------X Valid input VAT attributable to valid zero-rated sales/receipts In fine, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to the refund or issuance ofTCC in the amount ofP3,289,945�8o, representing excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four (4) quarters of CY 2019. Claims for the tax refund, like tax exemptions, are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. However, when the claim for refund has a clear legal basis and is sufficiently supported by evidence, as in the present case, then the Court shall not hesitate to grant the refund.'46 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed on 17 December 2021 by petitioner Halliburton Worldwide Limited - Philippine Branch is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner, in the reduced amount of P3,289,945�8o, representing its unutilized input Value-Added Tax attributable to its zero-rated sales/receipts for the 1", 2nd, 3rd and 4'h quarters of CY 2019. SO ORDERED. � . BACORRO-VILLENA WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 146 Chevron Holdings, Inc. (Formerly Caltex Asia Lhnited) v. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 215159, 05 July 2022.

CTA Case No. 10708 Halliburton Worldwide Limited- Philippine Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue DECISION x--------------------------------------------------------------------x LA~1vm 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

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY First Division HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE CTA Case No. 10708 LIMITED - PHILIPPINE BRANCH, Members: Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, PJ. , Chairperson, -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, and CUI-DAVID, :hL. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, !EP Respondent. 302025 .) Ir.3'0 frN X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - X DISSENTING OPINION DEL ROSARIO, P.J.: With due respect, I am constrained to withhold my assent on the ponencia. While I concur in the disallowance of petitioner's claimed export sales to its nonresident foreign affiliates, I submit that its reported sales of services to Energy Development Corporation (EDC), a renewable energy developer, must likewise be disallowed for failure to comply with the invoicing requirements under Section 113(B)(2)(c) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Consequently, petitioner's claim for refund of input value-added tax (VAT) attributable to zero-rated sales for the first to fourth quarters of calendar year 2019 must be denied in its entirety. Section 113(B)(2)(c) and (d) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, reads : (fl "SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons.-

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 XXX XXX XXX (B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: XXX XXX XXX (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax. Provided, That: XXX XXX XXX (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term "zero-rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (d) If the sale involved goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break-down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale. x x x" (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) The above provision is implemented by Section 4.113-1 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005, as amended, which reads: "SEC. 4.113-1. Invoicing Requirements. - XXX (B) Information contained in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt.- The following information shall be indicated in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: XXX (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT; Provided, That: XXX (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, the term "zero-rated sale" shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT -exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break-down of the sale price betwee(IJ

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the VAT on each portion of the sale shall be shown on the invoice or receipt. The seller has the option to issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale." (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) Thus, it is mandated that VAT invoices or official receipts (OR) evidencing zero-rated transactions must prominently bear the notation "zero-rated sale." Non-compliance with this invo1c1ng requirement constitutes valid ground for the denial of a claim for refund or tax credit. 1 The Supreme Court has, in several cases,2 consistently held that the writing or imprinting of the term "zero-rated sale" on the VAT invoice or OR is an indispensable requirement for a valid claim for refund of unutilized input tax. This requirement was traced by the Supreme Court from Section 4.108-1 of RR No. 7-95 and was later incorporated into Section 113(B)(2)(c) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9337, thereby affirming the validity of the imprinting requirement on VAT invoices or ORs, viz.: 3 "RR 7-95, which took effect on 1 January 1996, proceeds from the rule-making authority granted to the Secretary of Finance by the NIRC for the efficient enforcement of the same Tax Code and its amendments. In Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we ruled that this provision is reasonable and is in accord with the efficient collection of VAT from the covered sales of goods and services.' Moreover, we have held in Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the subsequent incorporation of Section 4.108-1 of RR 7-95 in Section 113(B)(2)(c) of R.A. 9337 actually confirmed the validity of the imprinting reguirement on VAT invoices or official receipts - a case falling under the principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment." (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Phi/ex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 230016, November 23, 2020. 2 Panasonic Communications Imaging Corporation of the Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 178090, February 8, 201 0; J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 177127, October 11, 2010; Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Philippines Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 174212, October 20, 2010; Kepco Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 181858, November 24, 2010; Silicon Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172378. January 17. 2011; Western Mindanao Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 181136, June 13, 2012; Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioneroflnternal Revenue, G.R. No. 183531, March 25,2015. 3 Western Mindanao Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, i~

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 42-2003 expressly provides that where a claim for refund is anchored on zero-rated sales but the taxpayer fails to comply with the invoicing requirements, the claim must be denied, viz.: "Q-13: Should penalty be imposed on TCC application for failure of claimant to comply with certain invoicing requirements, (e.g., sales invoices must bear the TIN of the seller)? A-13: Failure by the supplier to comply with the invoicing requirements on the documents supporting the sale of goods and services will result to the disallowance of the claim for input tax by the purchaser-claimant." (Boldfacing supplied} An examination of the 0Rs4 submitted by petitioner covering its sales of services to EDC reveals that the words "zero-rated sale" were neither separately written nor prominently imprinted thereon. Although petitioner indicated in the breakdown portion of its VAT ORs the amounts pertaining to "zero-rated sales," which constituted the entire amount of the sale, such entry did not cure its failure to prominently imprint the phrase "zero-rated sale" on the face of the receipts. It bears emphasis that the requirement to provide a breakdown of sales and the mandate to imprint "zero-rated sale" are governed by distinct provisions of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; specifically, Section 113(B)(2)(d), which pertains to mixed transactions involving VATable, VAT-exempt, or VAT zero-rated sales, and Section 113(B)(2)(c), which prescribes the imprinting requirement in cases of purely VAT zero-rated sales. Stated differently, where the transaction consists solely of a VAT zero-rated sale, the VAT OR must prominently bear the phrase "zero-rated sale," separate and distinct from any breakdown format, pursuant to Section 113(B)(2)(c) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. In contrast, for mixed transactions involving VATable, VAT-exempt, or VAT zero-rated sales, the breakdown format contemplated under Section 113(B)(2)(d) applies. In this case, petitioner's VAT ORs to EDC cover purely zero-rated sales; nonetheless, petitioner failed to comply with the imprinting requirement under Section 113(8)(2)(c). C1J 4 Exhibits "P-436", "P-439", "P-443", "P-448", "P-451", "P-454", "P-459", "P-462", "P-467", "P-470", "P-475", "P-556", "P-480", "P-489", "P-494", and "P-497", Annex "B-1 ", USB.

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 If the breakdown format were intended by law to suffice in all types of transactions-whether mixed transactions or purely zero-rated sales-there would have been no need for the legislature to craft separate provisions. One provision expressly requires the use of the breakdown format, while another distinctly mandates the prominent imprinting of the phrase "zero-rated sale" in cases involving purely VAT zero-rated transactions. Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, both in its earlier form under Republic Act No. 9337, which governs this case, and in its present form as amended by Republic Act No. 11976 or the "Ease of Paying Taxes Act," prescribes two distinct formats: either invoices bearing the prominent imprint of the phrase "zero-rated sale," or invoices employing the breakdown format, depending on the nature of the transaction. Section 113, as amended by RA No. 9337 and RA No. 11976, provides: RA No. 9337 RA No. 11976 SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Section 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-registered Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons.- Persons.- (A) Invoicing Requirements. - A (A) Invoicing Requirement. - A VAT-registered person shall issue: VAT-registered person shall issue a VAT invoice for every sale, barter, exchange, (1) A VAT invoice for every sale, or lease of goods or properties, and for barter or exchange of goods or every sale, barter or exchange of properties; and services. (2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and (B) Information Contained in the VAT for every sale, barter or Invoice. - The following information exchange of services. shall be indicated in the VAT invoice: (B) Information Contained in the VAT XXX XXX XXX Invoice or VAT Official Receipt.- The following information shall be (c) If the sale is subject to indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT zero percent (0%) official receipt: value-added tax, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be XXX XXX XXX written or printed on the invoice; (c) If the sale is subject to (d) If the sale involves zero percent (0%) goods, properties or services some of which are value-added tax, the term subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated 'zero-rated sale' shall be or VAT-exempt, the invoice shall clearly written or printed indicate the breakdown of the sale _m-ice between prominently on the invoice or receipt; (d) If the sale involves goods, properties or services

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 some of which are subject to its taxable, exempt, and and some of which are VAT zero-rated components, zero-rated or VAT-exempt, and the calculation of the the invoice or receipt shall value-added tax on each clearly indicate the portion of the sale shall be break-down of the sale shown on the price between its taxable, invoice: Provided, That the exempt and zero-rated seller may issue separate components, and the invoices for the taxable, calculation of the exempt, and zero-rated value-added tax on each components of the sale. portion of the sale shall be XXX shown on the invoice or receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale. XXX Notably, the Ease of Paying Taxes Act5 retained separate provisions for transactions requiring the imprinting of "zero-rated sale" and those subject to the "breakdown format," although with a minor modification in the imprinting requirement, namely, the removal of the word "prominently." The retention of these distinct requirements affirms that the format mandating the imprinting of "zero-rated sale" is separate and distinct from the "breakdown format" applicable to mixed transactions. In several VAT refund cases, this Court has permitted erasures and corrections in invoices or ORs provided these were made by an authorized signatory. This treatment, however, presents the risk of manipulation, particularly when it involves portions reflecting the types and amounts of sales. Unscrupulous taxpayers could alter zero-rated transactions supported only by a breakdown format, without the separate and prominent indication of "zero-rated sale," to make them appear VATable, in order to entitle them to input tax credits. To prevent this abuse, the requirement of prominently imprinting the term "zero-rated sale" in receipts covering purely zero-rated transactions must be enforced. This safeguard ensures that alterations cannot easily convert zero-rated sales into VATable sales, thereby avoiding the unwarranted use of credits against output tax liability or, worse, the refund of taxes not actually incurred or paid. 01 5 RA No. 11976.

DISSENTING OPINION CTA Case No. 10708 ALL TOLD, I VOTE to DENY the Petition for Review for lack of merit, petitioner having failed to establish its zero-rated sales due to non-compliance with substantiation requirements under relevant laws and regulations. Presiding Justice