CTA Case No. 2799 (Decision)

" ~� '�''JHLH o:- 'I Ill!. HULIPPl'N)'.:'t> ~OURT Of TAX A&"'T~U ""'~ll7W rn~ INTER-ISLAND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petri t.ione:r ( - ve.rsus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 2799 ' coMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.� X - - .- - - - - .- .- .- .x. DE C I S I 0 N Inter.nal Revenue dat:.e:d Har:ch 8, 1976 ass.ess.ing; agJains.t pe:ti t:ioner Int:er:-lsland Construction Corporatic;m in the sum of ~77 ,632.5>2 re:pre:s.e�nt.ing ,d,efic:iency per.c:ent.- ase: tax., surcharge: and compromise penal tries for the year: 1965, petitioner appe:ale:d to this Cou.IL.t. It: appears that petitdone.r Int:e:r-Island Cons- truction Corporation i~ a domestic corporation organized and e.xisting unde:r and by virtue of the laws. of the Philippines wi t.h p~incipal office at Industria, Que z.on City. (pnr. 1, pe.t:it.ion; admit.t:ed, par. 1, Answer) �. It is eng,aged� in the business of. leasing he�avy equipment:. and in supplying big hotels, housing projects, office build- in91s, and residential homes. of the�ir in t:e�rior: fe�atr.ur:e:s. 3 1") , ~�

--�-- - ....--.... DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 2- like panels, kitchen cabinets, shoji and flush doors, lattice and sound proof partitions, louver dividing walls 1 sculp t ured la t:.t .ice ce~ iling, s, bathroom vanities 1 handrails, etc. mostly of narra and other first class wood.. It. has registered and advertised. itself as a gene.ral contractor and in the early part. of its operat.ion had been paying the 3-% contractor's tax on its gross receipts. In 1965, it:. claimed liability as manufacturer subject:. to 7% tax on the net receipts after deductible materials. The corporat:.ion, however, has not kept:. the records required of a manufacturer. Neither was it provided wi t:h any (C-14) .manufac:turer 1 s 1 producer 1 s or ex:por ter 1 s privile:ge tax receipt.� However, it: had a contractor 1 s Pr ivileg,e Tax Receipt.. It was ascertained that the demand for. it.s products v.;ere filled according to job orders and its invoices and stationary catried the bold print "General Contractors". Its Articles of Incorporation (Exh. 10 1 pp. 58-65, CT~ rec.) .showed that. it. was organized p r imarily "to conduct and. c:ar ry on the business of builders and contractors". The co~:poration registered its business name and its books of accounts as a contractor. Bulk of its trans- actions wer.e entered and posted in its books as Con- tracts Rece i vables. It manufactu r es i t.s products 33 5

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - .3 - according. to customer's specification ::; ketches, and/or drawings, or arc hi te.ct:.'s plan wi t:.h corresponding job order numbers. (Exh. 9, p. 71, BIR rec.) A number of jobs were e.i t:her for services only or inc:ludlingJ installation of the article madce. These ar.r.ay of facts have never been assailed by the taxpayer. (E.xh. 1-1-A_, pp. 86-90, BIR rec.) On March 10, 1969 1 � respondent through its agent, conducted an investig,ation of petitioner's bus-ines-s ta~~ liabilitie:s for the- year 1965. (Exh. 1, s-upra.) Consequently, on April 20, 1971, respondent issued, an asse:ssmen t:. not::.ice to petitioner assess-in9 and, demanding payment. from the lat t::er the amount:: of F-77,632.52 as deficiency contractor's. tax for the year 1965, including surcharge and compromise penalties (Exh. B & 3, p. 98, BIR rec.) _computed as follows: Cash receipts as per cash reg,ist:.er book ������������������������������ P2,325,505.15 Add: Cont:.r.acts receivable offset:. vs. payable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 325,641.14: 'lbtal receipts ��������������������� Ei2,65-l,l46.29 Deduct "As-is" or "C-13" sales ����� 221 ,264. <, L Arrount subject to contractor 1s tax � Ei_2,423 r881. 8?_ 3% tax due the.reon �����������'������ 72,716.45 Less: Arrount paid as manufacturer 1 s sales tax......................... 11,090.43 Deficiency percentage tax ���������� 61 1626.02 25% surcharge thereon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15, 40�..! 5Q Total arrount due ������������������� :@ 77,032.52 For _late payment of percentage tax � 300.00 For failure to comply with bookkeep ---------'- � ing regulations ������������������� 300.00 'IDI'AL Ar-UUNT DUE AND COLLECTIBLE ��� :�:1::=:::7::7::,:6::3:::2.:..5:=2: 33 G

-- ---.... DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - .4. - On April 5, 1972, peti t.ioner proteste:d. aml questioned t:he validity of the said assessment and requested the withdrawal and cancellation of the same alleging that: petitioner is engaged in manufacturing, subject. to manufacturer's tax, and is not subject to a contractor's tax, citing the decision of our Supreme Court in the case of Celestino Co & Company vs. Com- missioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-8506, Aug. ll, 1956, 99 Phil. 841. (Exhs. C & 4, pp. 121-~24, BIR rec.) Warrants of Distraint. of Personal Property and Levy on Real Property were issued on November 25, 1975 against the properties (real and personal) .of peti- tioner Inter-Island Construction Corp., which were� received for petitioner by E.E. Black Ltd. on November 25, 1975 at 2:59 P.M. (Exhs. 6 and 7, pp. 161-162, BIR rec.) On March 8, 1976, respondent denied petitione: r's~ request. for. the wi t.hdrawa1 and, cancellation of the ' assessment and reiterated his demand for petitioner to pay the amount of P.77,632.52 as deficiency percent- age tax, surcharg,e and compromise penal ties for the year 1965, which denial was allegeG:Hy received by peti- tioner on March 30, 1976. (Exhs. D & 5, pp. 184-188, BIR rec.) A complaint. for collection of said deficiency 337

-. - -....... DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 -5 - assessment was filed by respondent on April 13, 1976 against petitioner with the Court of First Instance of Manila, docket-ed as Civil Case No. 102035, entitled "Republic of the Phil. vs. Inter:-:;._sland Construction Corp." (Exh. 12, pp. 134-1.36, CTA rec.). On April 23, 1976, petitioner, through counsel, filed its petit.ion f or review with our Court. The issues to be resolved are, to wit: (1) Whether or not petitioner was a manufacturer or contractor in the year. 1965 when it was assesse�d for deficiency percentage tax, surcharg,e and. compromise penalties in the amount. of P-77,632.52; (2) Granting for the sake of argument that pe:ti- tioner was a contractor, whether: the inclusion of the following amount: a. P-915,537.18 representing rental income received by petitioner from leasing of heavy equipment. for the yea,r: 1965. b. P-325,641.14, representing debit entries to contracts receivable for the year 1965. to form part of the gross receipts totalling P-2,4:23,881.82 subject. to the computation of the 3% contractor's tax is proper; and (3) Whether the right of the respondent to as.s.e:ss and collect the alleged deficiency percentage tax, 33 .

- ::0: - DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 6- inclusive of surcharge and penalty, for the year 1965, has prescribed pursuant to the provisions of Section 331 of the� Tax Code. With respect to the first:. issue, petitioner main- t.ains the view that. during the year 1965 in question, it was a manufacturer. The mere fact that the articles it sold were made in accordance with certain specific- ations of it:.s customers do not. necessarily convert its operation frcm that of a manufac.turer to that of a contractor. In support of its contention, petitioner cited the Supreme Cour t decision in Celestino Co & Company vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-8506, Aug. 31, 1956, 99 Phil. 841; wherein the Supreme Court had held that a factory which habitually makes sash, windows and doors, and sells the goods to the public, although in such form or combination as may suit the fancy of the pur c-haser, each new form does not divest its character as manufacturer. (Memo. of petitioner, pp. 87-93, CTA rec.) Respondent, on the other hand, insistently main- tains that petitioner was at the t:.ime a contractor subject to the 3% contractor's tax, and not a manu- factur.er subject to the 7% sales ta~. He alleges that the~ term "independent contractor" is defined to include persons (juridical or natural) ~ not enumerated in 33 !!

- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 -7 - Section 191 (now Section 205} .of the Ta x Code, but not includins individual subject. to the occupation tax under Section 12 of the Local Tax Code, whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all kinds of services for a fee regardless of whether or not the � performance of t.he service calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of. such con- tractors or their employees, and that this term is now so expressly defined that its scope is made very clear to include any person, therefore, who without being included in the enumeration of persons engaged in the sale of all kinds of services is now indubitably considered an independent contractor. (Jose Ar anas, Annotations and Jurisprudence on the National Internal Revenue Code, Vol. II, 5th Ed., p. 300.} Furthermora, respondent argues, the word "con- tractor" has come to be used with special reference to a person who, in the pursuit of an independent I business, undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other persons, using his own means and methods without submitting himself to control as to petty details. (Jose Aranas, Ibid, p. 318, par. 191(2} '� 1970 Ed.} We find the view of respondent to the effect that petitioner is a contractor and not a manufacturer is 34(

u --- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 8- well taken. Our Civil Code makes a dist inct i on between a contract. of sale and contract for a piece of work. Article 1467 of the Civil Code states thus - / "A contract for the delivery a t a certain price of an article which the / vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general mark~t, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manu- factured specially ~or the custorr:e r and . upon his special order:, and not for t~ general market, it is a contract for a piece of work." (Underlining supplied.) The distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials is tested by the inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which would never have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed and been the subject of sale to some other persons, even if the order had not been given. (Groves vs. Buck, 3; Maules &S. 178; Towers vs . Osborne, 1 Strange, 506; ,Benjamin on Sales ? 90) �. (Jose Aranas, Annotations and Jurisprudence on the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, Vol. II, Second Ed., 1963, p. 432.) The facts and records of this case show tha t pet i - t ioner Int.er-Island Construction Corporation, besides registering and advertising itself as a contractor, derived its receipts not from r e ady made article s of 34 1

- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 -9 - standard siz.es for the average horne, but from orders for a few projects like Dolfil (Dole Phil.) .job, L and S Building partitioning, Que.en Emma Garden project and Haas and Haynie Corporation project which were in accordance and in strict compliance with plans and specifications of architects (Exh. 9, pp. 67-71, BIR rec.) ~ Petitioner does not, therefore, mass produce or habitually makes narra panels, kitchen cabinets, lattice and sound proof partitions, sculptured lattice ceiling,s, narra doors, partitions, and handrails. Its invoices show that orders were filled according to job orders made by its clients while others were for services only, like kiln drying. and installation; that it is engaged in supplying big hotels, housing, projects, office buildings and residential houses with interior features like panels, kichen cabinets, shoji and flusk doors, lattice and sound proof partitions, lower dividing walls, bathroom vanities, etc., and. ,it does not manu- facture these articles for the general market. (Exh. I, pp. 86-90, BIR rec.) The above transactions are clearly contracts for a piece of work and, therefore, petitioner is considered as a contractor because the articles furnished by it were not in existence at the time needed and they existed only on account of the orders made by its 3 '1') �f-.1

DECISION - CTA CAS E NO. 2799 - 10 - customers. The distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials, is tested by the inquiry \oJhether the thing transfer red is one not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given. If the article ordered by the purchaser is exact.ly such as as the taxpayer makes and keeps on hand for sale to anyone, and no change or modification of it is made at customer's request, it is a cont.ract of sale, even thoug;h it may be entirely made after the customer had ordered it. (Commissioner vs. Engineering Equipment and Supply Co., et al., 64 SCRA 590.) And the true test of being a contractor: is that he rencders service in the c.our.se of an inde- pendent. occupation, representing the will of his employer only insofar as the resul t,of his work is concerned, but not. as to the means by which it is accomplished. (Luzon Stevedoring, Co . , vs. Trinidad 1 vs. Trinidad, 43 Phil. 816,819.) The case of Celestino Co and Company vs. Corn- missio. ner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-8.506, August 31, 1956, cited by petitioner, is not on all

--- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 11 - tours with the instant case. In the: c ittedl case , the petiti oner was a manufacturer claiming to be a con- tractor. While: in the case at hand, petitioner is a cont.ractor claiming) to be a manufac.turer. In that decis-ion, the Supr.eme Court noted that the Oriental Sash Factory registered and adcver tised i ts-e:lf as a manufac�turer, and that the bulk of. its s-ales was derived from readly-madte doors and windows of standanl s.iz.es for the: aver.ag,e: homes. Petitioner, however, in the instant case, had registered and advertised itself as a cont.racto.r, paid its Privilege Tax Receipt as a contractor, and that. the bulk of its rece.ipts was derived not from ready mad.e articles of s -tandar.d sizes- for the averag1e- homes, but. from specific orders for projects like the Dolfil (Dole Phil.) job, L and s Building partitioning, Queen Emma Garden project, Haas & Haynie Corporation project, aforesaid, and in accordance to and "in strict compliance with plans and specifications of a r chitects." In the cited case, pe:ti t .ioner there does nothing more than sell t he goods that it mass-produce or habitually makes. In the instant case, petitioner d.oes not habitually makes narra panels, kitchen cabinets, lattice and sound proof partitions, sculptured lattice ceiling, narra doors, partitions and handrail~ and the invoices showed that orders were fille d according to j ob orders, but

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 12 - the services were for kiln drying and ir:stallation. In the c i t.ed case, the Supreme Court observe-d that petitioner there "could st.ock and/or probably had in stock t:.he sash, mould.ing,s and panels"; while peti- tioner, in the instant. case, does- not carry stock in trade or inventor y of finished products. It is safe, therefore, to conclude, that. petit-ioner is a contrac-tor. Since we adjudg,ed pet:.it.ioner as a contractor during the� year in question, the: second issue that. confronts- us is whether or not. the inclusion of the amount of �1915,537.18, represent-ing_ rental income in the year 1965, and �1325,641.14, representing debit entries to contracts receivables for the same year, or a total of �12,423,881.82 arrived at as follows: Cash receipts (per cash receipt p 2 , 3-25-, 5-0 5 .15 books) ����� a ������������������ 325,641.14 �12,651,146.29 Add: Contracts receivable offset vs. payable ������������ 227,264.47 Total re-Ceipts ���.��������.��.� �12,423,881.82 Deduct as is or c-13 sales ����� Amount subject to Contractor's, t .ax ..............�.�...�..� �..� as part of the g,ross receipts for the purpose of com- put.ing the 3% contractor's tax is legal and proper. There is no dispute as to petitioner's cash receipt of �12,325,505.15 for the year 1965 appearing, in the agent's Field Audit Report dated March 10, 1969 (Exh~. A & 2, pp. 84, BIR rec.) since this amount was verified to have been reflected in the books and found

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 13 - correct by pe t itioner's accountant (t.s.n., Hear:ing of April 20, 1977, p. 6) ~ The controversy in t he instant c ase is on t he amount that should be considered as the tax base for purposes of computing, t...he 3% c.on- t..r actor ' s tax � A perusal of the records will show that the com- position of the amoun t of P2,325,505.15 is as follows; (1) .local items, (2) _rental income, (3) .export sales and (4) ."as is" sales. (Exhs. E to E-15, Exhs. F to F-14, and Exh. G, pp. 35-36, CTA rec.; t.s.n., April 20, 1977, pp. 5-6.) Petitioner claims that respondent's tax base of P2,423,881.82 was erroneous because it included the total amount of P918,537.18, representing its rental income for 1965 which was not then subject to :the 3% contr..ractor's tax, and the amount of P256,269.25 re- presenting contracts receivables which were never collected and were cancelled from the books of peti- tioner. Respondent, contrarily, avers that t he inclu- sion of said amount for purposes of the 3% contractor's tax was legal and valid. We find t h e view of the petitioner well taken. We will discuss the first amount of P918,537.18 representing the rental income for 1965. The records will show (Exh. G, pp. 35-36, CTA rec.) t hat this . 34 G

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 14 - amount was inclut;led in the computation of the: 3% contractor's tax which inclusion is erroneous since rental income of contractors are not subject to the 3% contractor's tax, neither does the act of renting their equipment subject them to payment of any internal. revenue business tax. Thus, BIR Ruling, 105.02 dated November 8, 1954 states as follows: "The income derived by c.ontractr.ors from the rental of their. equipments is not subject to the 3% contractor's tax; an<~l neithe�r doe:s the act: of renting, their equipment.s subject them to the: payment. of any internal revenue business tax. However, if the renting should be in consequence. or in virtue of any contrac:t . to b~ per.formed by the contractor him- self, the rentals of such equipment shall form part::. of the contractor's gross receipts under such contract." (Underlining supplied.) . The second amount is .El325,64l.l4. representing, contracts re.ceivables that have been offset ag,ains.t it.s accounts payable. This amount. of :El325,641.14. is composed of five (5) .items in the amounts as follows: . . . Item . . Item . ... .. . Item . . .. .. Item . ... . Item (1} ......................................................... :Ell07,468.92 24:,000.00 ( 2) 69,371.89 ( 3) 4.0,277.72 ( 4) 84,522.61 ( 5�) il325,64l.l4 or a total of :El325,641.14. Of this. total amount, petitioner had adrnit.t:ed that the amount of :El69,37l.89 (Ite.m 3) was actually offset ag,ainst its payable, so 34 7

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 15 - that. deducting_ said amount of �'169,371.89 f x:- om P325-,6-41.14, there is a remaining balance of P256,269.25. The amount. of P325,641.14 in controversy had been reduced to P256,269.25. (t.s.n., April 20, 1977, pp. 31-40.) The records will show that: Items 1, 4. and 5 have one thing in common in that they refer to extra mate- rials or goods sent to customers which were not included in the or ig.inal purchase order, the payment of which were neither received by peti~ioner nor the goods and materials returned. So the original journal entries for these were reversed. Item 2 refers to debit Dividends Payable,P24,000.00 and credit Contract Receivable, E.E. Black, P24,000.00 1 and the explanation is reversal of dividends payable on 300,000 shares, 8% cummulative preferred stocks due to wrong. entry. In effect, these four items have been cancelled in the books of petitioner. (Exhs. H and H-1, pp. 37-39, CTA rec.) Since the amount. of P325,641.14, now reduced to P256,269.25, were treated as a receivable in the books of petitioner but was written off the books by a reversing entry, said amount should not therefore form part of the gross receipts of petitioner in 1965. The Bureau of Internal Revenue had consistently ruled that the 3% contractor's tax should be based only on 34 8 I

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 16 - actual receipt s. Thus, as "gross receipts" means the actual amount received by the contractor, only the realized or collected amounts are therefore subject to the 3 % tax. (See Jose Aranas, A~notations and Jurisprudence on the NIRC, as amended, Vol. II, 1963, p. 436 ; BIR Ruling, 105.02, Dec. 26, 1956.) Likewise, in the case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs . Collector, 90 Phil. 674, it was held that the gross receipts within the meaning of Section 191 refer to amounts actually received, which does not include accounts receivable. The correct tax base should instead be as follows: Amount subject to contractor's tax (per respondent's computations) �������.�� ~2 , 423,881.82 Less: Rental income for 1965 ~918,537.15 Contracts receivable written off and uncol- lected including wrong entry intended for dec- laration of dividend 256,269.25 ,1,174,806.25 Adjusted amount subject to 3% contractor's tax ~1 , 249,075.57 With this new adjusted tax base, the alleged deficiency contractor's tax will, therefore, be as follows: Amount subject to 3% tax ����.�����.����� � � ~1,249,075.57 3% tax due thereon........................ 37,472.26 Less: amount paid as manufacturer's sales tax.... . ........................... 11,090 . 43 Deficiency percentage tax ��������.�����.�� ~ 26,381.83 25% surcharge thereon ���������������.��.�� -----~6~'�5~9_5_._45~ TCYI'AL AMJUNT DUE AND COLLECTIBLE �.��.���.� ~ 32 ,977.28 ========= ''-)' �4t �.

- - --- - DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 17 - With respect to the compromise pen 2. lty for late payment and for failure to comply with bookkeeping regulation, the same cannot be imposed or collected without the agr~ement and conformity of petitioner. (Manila Central University vs. Comm. of Int. Rev., CTA Case No. 2848, Oct. 19, 1978.) Cc ming to the third and last issue, petitioner contends that the right of the respondent to assess and collect the deficiency percentage tax, inclusive of surcha rge and penalties, for the year 1965 has already prescribed pursuant to the provisions of Section 331 of the Tax Code (now Section 318 of the National Internal Reve nue Code of 1977 . ) We find petitioner's contention untenable and without merit. The filing by petitioner of a manu- facturer 's percentage tax return cannot be considered as a return of the contractor's tax for the purpose of computing the period of prescrip~ion under Sect i on 331 of the Tax Code as the taxpayer must file a return for the particular tax required by law in order to avail itself of benefits of Section 331 of the Tax Code (Butuan Sawmill, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-20601, Fe ~ ruary 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 277.) Stated otherwise, if the taxpayer does not file the particular return required as in the

:a u DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 18 - i nstant case where petitioner had fi led a manufacturer's percentage tax returns instead of a contractor's tax return, an assessment may be made within the period of ten (10) .Years from the omission or the filing of a false re t urn as provided in Section 332(a) ?f the same Code. Thus, Section 332(a) of the Tax Code provides: "Sec. 332. Exceptions as t:o period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes. - (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent retur�n with intent to evade tax o r of a failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in Court for the collection of such tax may be beg,un without assessment, at anytime wi thin ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud, or omission. Provided, that in a fraud assessment which has become final and executor y, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in a civil or criminal action for the collection thereof. (as amended by Presidential Decree No. 69. )" The filing by petitioner of a false return with intent to evade payment of a contractor's tax was dis- covered only by respondent's examin~r on March 10, 1969, when petitioner was investigated in connection with its business tax case and its claim for refund of compensating taxes for the year 1965. (Exh. I, supra.) Respondent has, therefore, up to March 10, 1979 within which to assess petitioner of its tax liabilities. As th~ assessment in this case was made on April 20, 1971, it is obvious that it was made wi t hin the per i od 35 1

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2799 - 19 - prescribed by law. And in accordance with Section 332(c) .of the Tax Code, respondent has five (5) .years after the assessment of the tax within which to effect collect.ion of the same by judicial action. Since the assessment was made on April 20, 1971, respondent has a right to effect collection of the same up to Ap ril 20, 1976. The complaint for collection of this case was filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila on April 13, 1976 which is well within the period of five years from the date of assessment. The respondent's right to assess and collect the _tax, therefore , has not prescribed. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified. Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the sum of ~32,977.28, as deficiency contractor's tax, inclusive of surcharge, plus interest at the rate of 14% per annum from January 1, 1973 until fully paid. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, August 27, 1982~. ~ - CONfo~ANTEvC� ROAQUIN ;ssocia te Judg,e WE CONCUR: ~4.cl/' AMANTE F~L~R-v Presiding Judge ~~ Associate Judg,e ___ . 3 ') ~ ._) f_,