CTA Case No. 4039 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY AFISCO INSURANCE CORPORATION, CCC INSURANCE CORPORATION, CHARTER INSURANCE CO., INC., CJBELES INSURANCE CORPORATION, COKitONWEALTH INSURANCE COitPANY, CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE CO., INC., DEVELOPitENT INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, DOitESTIC INSURANCE COitPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, EAS TERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, EltP IRE INSURANCE COitPANY, EQUITABLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO�� INC., FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, FIDELITY & SURETY COitPANY � OF THE PHILS., INC., FILIPINO ltERCHANTS' INSURANCE CO. � INC. � GOVERNitENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEit, ltALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC�� ltALAYAN ZURICH INSURANCE CO., INC., '� ltERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC . , ltETROPOLITAN INSURANCE COitPANY, ltETRO - TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION, NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO., LTD., PAN - ItALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, PARAitOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, PEOPLES' TRANS - EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERLA COitPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., PHIL I PPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., I NC. , PH ILI PPINES FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC., PIONEER INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, PIONEER INTERCONTINENTAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, 637

DECISION - C. T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 2- PROVIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO�� INC�� RELI ANCE SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY. RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY. SANPIRO INSURANCE CORPORATION. SEABOARD-EASTERN INSURANCE CO�� INC. � SOLID GUARANTY. INC�� SOUTH SEA SURETY & INSURANCE , CO. � INC. � STATE BONDING & INSURANCE CO�� INC. � SUMMA INSURANCE CORPORATION. TABACALERA INSURANCE CO�� INC �� assessed as �pooL OF MACHINERY INSURERS� Petitioners, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Respondent. X- - - - -- --- -X DEC I S I 0 N Petitioners appeal the decision o:f t he Commissioner o:f Internal Revenue a~aessing i t de:ficiency income taxes and interest as a c orporation , and w1 t hho lding t;;nces as withholding agent on dividends paid to l'lunchener Ruckve rsicherungs-Gesselscha:ft o:f Munich (hereinafter referred to as Munich>, a non-resident :foreign insurance corporation. 638

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 3- The pertinent portion o� respondent's decision is quoted: "xxx XXX XXX Records o� this case disclosed that Pool is a non-stock, non-pro�it corporation engaged in the insurance business; that this O��ice has considered Pool as a corporation .. subject to tax under Section 24 o� the Tax Code; that �or the year 1975, 'Pool derived _, premium income o� P9,701,169.00 and commission income o� P572,576.00 constituting a total u n d e r w r i.t i n g income o� P10,273,745.00; that a�ter deducting the total underwriting deductions o� P6, 823, 936 and operating expense o� P21,332.00 there remains a net income �rom operations in the amount o� P3,239,477.00; and that adding other income amounting to P497, 893. 00, the total taxable income o� Pool is P3,737,370.00, which is subject to income tax in the amount o� Pl, 843, 273. 60. Your allegation that the income represents reinsurance premiums which is not subject to income tax cannot be sustained since there is no proo� on record supporting your allegation. J For the same reason this O��ice also sustains the assessment o� Pl, 768, 79~. 39 as de�iciency withholding tax assessed against your client. As regards the assessment o� P89,438.68 as de�iciency withholding tax on dividends paid to Pool members, the same is also sustained. It clearly appears on record that your client distributed dividends to Pool members which are subject to the lOY. withholding tax. Finally, the right o� the government to assess Pool is not barred by the statute o� limitations considering that it did not �ile an income tax return but merely an in�ormation return. In other words, assessment can be made within ten (10) years �rom discovery o� the �ailure to �ile income tax return, pursuant to Section 319 of 639

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 -4- Tax Code. In this case the discovery was made on February 27, 1981 which is the date of the report of the investgating examiners, and the .assessment as made on March 27, 1981. XXX XXX xxx. " The assessment against petitioners is itemized as follows: ~et income per information P3,7 3 7,370.00 return PI,298,080.00 Income tax due thereon _ _54_~ 193.~Q Add: 14Y. Int. fr. 4/15/76 Pl, 8~ 273. GO to 4/15/79 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE Dividend paid to Munich P3,_ 7 ~ 8, 412. 00 Reinsurance Company P1,304,944.20 35Y. withholding tax at 326,236.05 source due thereon 137,019.14 Add: 25Y. surcharge 300.00 14Y. interest from ---- 300.00 1/25/76 to 1/25/79 E.L2~ 799. 39 Compromise penalty- non-filing of return late payment TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE Dividend paid to Pool Members P Gss, G3G. _oo lOY. withholding tax at p 65,563.60 source due thereon 16,390.90 Add: 25Y. surcharge 6,884.18 14Y. interest from 1/25/76 to 1/25/79 300.00 _____,;300 . 00 Compromise penalty - ~=->;::-; ~~9~=,=4=3=8=. =6 =8 non- filing of return late payment TOTAL AMOUNT DUE & COLLECTIBLE Peti ti o n ers non - li f~ insurance corporations organized and existing by virtue of the law of the Philippines which entered into Erection, Machinery Breakdown, Boiler Explosion and Contractors' All Risks Reinsurance Treaties. 640

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 _, - 5- Reinsurance Treaties provided for the creation of a Pool known as "Pool of Machinery Insurers". Petitioners dispute the decision of respondent by contending, among others, that the so-called "Pool of Machinery Insurers" is not a corporation wi'thin the meaning of Section 24 of the National In' ternal Revenue Code <Commonwealth Act 466, as amended among others by ,Presidential Decree 69 >. Said Pool was never engaged in any business least of all the insurance business whether as insurers, reinsurers, or in the assumption of any risk as insurer. It allegedly merely served as a "clearing house" for the Pool members, and trustee of the funds <through an Executive Board> of the Pool signatories and of the unremitted premiums due _to Munich on reinsurance ceded and assumed by Munich. Assuming the Pool can be termed a corporation as provided in Section 84 of the National Internal Revenue Code, it is nevertheless tax-exempt under Section 27 <f > of the same. There is, furth~ ~ . petitioners proposition that respondent 's assessment is barred by prescription. The r espondent asserts that petitioners compose a partnership as defined in Article 1767 of the Civil Code in relation to Section 20 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code (of 1977>. _, 64 1

- DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 -6- After referring to the evidence submitted and cases that shed light on the subject of what and what does not constitute a corporation, we take the opinion that the findings of respondent are sustainable. _, As further described in Section 84 ( b > of the National Internal Revenue Code a "corporation" for income tax purposes includes � associations or partnerships no matter how created or organized. The essential elements of a "partnership" relation have been laid as 1 > purpose to engage in some business enterprise: 2> joint control or management of such business (Bautista, Philippine. Partnership Law, p. 3 citing cases>. An "association", generally, may exist where individuals voluntarily have associated themselves together, without e. charter or in unincorporated form, to engage in business, using methods and forms resembl ing those commonly used by corporations <Hert9ns , Law on Federal I ncome Taxa tion, Vol. 7, 19 76 revision, Chap. 38A p. 2 >. An association and a partnership are so similar in many instances that it is almost impossible to distinguish one from the other <Id. >. More so under Philippine law as the ta ~ implications of an association and a partnersh i~ treated as a corporation are the same. 642

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 -7- For taxation purposes, emphasis is not on the �arm but on the substance o� the entity and its transactions <Mertens, supra citing National Investors Corp. v. Hoey 144 F 2d 466). A "corporation" will be interpreted to mean a co~poration which does some "business" in the ord' inary meaning Some o� the term <Id. >. commercial, industrial or .other activity is �doing "business" in the ordinary meaning <Id. >. "It would seem that the term "business" implies the pro�it motive <Bautista, supra>. The determination o� t he e x i ste nce o� a corporate entity �or tax purposes necessitates, there�ore, inquiry mainly into whether the entity served a business purposi? <Mertens, supra Chap. 38A, citing cases>. Thr:ll element o� joint control or centralized management has also been established as essential as well as continuity o� li�e o� the organization. <Mertens, supra, p. 8 citing Estate o� Smith v. Comm., 313 F 2d 724: See also Chap. 38A, pp. 13-14>. � In re�using to acknowledge its character as a corporation, petitioners deny any premium incE"~~. the issuance o� any insurance policies, or the assumption �a� any risk o� loss. 1'he evidence perused belie.> the contention of peti tioners that the Pool does not assume any risk. The ceding ~ 643

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 -8- Munich of only a part of the insurances ~reviously underwritten by the "Ceding Companies" which comprise the Pool would connote proportionate sharing of risks betwe.en them. The Quota Share Reinsurance Treaty for example provides that "Thl!:? Ceding Companies' undertake to cede to the 'Munich' -� a ' fixed quota share of 40Y. of all insurances mentioned in Article 2 thereof and 'Munich' shall ' be obliged to accept all insurances so ceded <Article 3 >. The Surplus Reinsurance Treaty, on the other, provides that "The 'Ceding Companies' bind themselves to cede to the 'Munich' the entire 15 line surplus of the insurance specified in Article 2 hereof. The surplus shall consist of all sums insured remaining after deduction of the Quota share and of the proportion combined net retention of the 'Pool'. - The retention referred to applies to the sum insured of each machine, mechanical equipment or apparatus, in case of erectiotl insurance to each object insured <See Table of Retention, Exh. "M", p. 2). The 'Munich' undertakes to accept the amounts so ceded up to fifteen times the 'Ceding Company's proportionate retention (.Article 3) ". While it is understood that we have Reinsurance Treaties here between the Ceding Companies and Munich, the latter, from 6 44

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 -9- understanding of the provisions of the agreement and its supplements, did not undertake to assume all of the risks of the other as ordinarily a reinsurance contract would apply <See definition of "reinsurance" 36 Words and Phrases 730-731>. Instead the Pool was created with one of the pu'rposes as a sharing of risks with Munich, as in fact, only a part of the i~surances have been ceded to Munich. The Pool members were clearly left with some share of assumption of risks as the following other provisions would imply: _, 1. In the case of a loss where the members are requested to advance their share of the loss immediately, the Executive Board shall advise the members of the amount of contribution of each for the loss and, if the free funds to the credit of a member in the Pool are insufficient to cover the loss, the Executive Board shall request the member to forward immediately to it the necessary amount for payment to-. the Ceding Company of the share of the Pool members in the loss <Article V, Sec. IV of the Pool Agreement). a. The parties to this Agreement have agreed to create a reserve fund, in an amount to be decided from time to time by the Executive Board, to guarantee the prompt settlement of losses. The Pool shall deposit the funds in a Savings Account bearing interest at ' t he prevailing rate, and any interest ear ned shall be credited to the account Pt each member company in proportio~ t o i t s contribution to the reserve fund. It i s understood and agr eed, ho we~er, that any member-company withdrawing from the Pool share of the s:e; erve s hall have the right to withdraw its fund includi~

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 10 - earned interest, if any, after meeting all its obligation <Addendum No. 1 to the Pool Agreement>. The reserve fund shall be used exclusively for the settlement of the share of a loss due from the member- company who has failed to respond to a cash call within the prescribed period and only to the extent of the respective contributions to the fund of said members, in such a way that the contribution of one member shall not answer for the loss settlement liability of another or other members. Finally, it is understood and agreed that any loss payment made out of the reserve fund for the account of any member-company shall .be replenished by each member concerned within thirty <30) days from cash call <Id. >. 2. The liability of the 'Munich' for the reinsurances ceded to it under this Agreement shall commence and cease simultaneously with that of the 'Ceding Companies' <Article . 6 of the Quota Reinsurance Treaty). It is understood and agreed that the ' Munich' shall follow the fortunes of the' Ceding Companies' in treaty ma't ters in the proportion of its share <Id., See similar provision in the Surplus Reinsurance Treaty>. There being a cession of insurances from the Ceding Companies to Munich and a sharing of ris~ fS by the Pool, income is earned by the Cedin~ Companies in the form of premiums and varioue types of commissions paid to it by Munich. Th is i s illustr a ted b y di f f ~ren t provisions in the Agreement and its supplements, viz: 646

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 11 - a. The parties to this Agreement shall share in the business ceded to the Pool in accordance with the 'Rules for Distribution', xxx <Article V, Section VII of the Pool Agreement). b. "Divide the premium of a given policy into 60Y.-40Y. shares: 40Y. to be ceded to the "Munich" through the Quota Share Treaty and GOY. to the Pool members in equal sares" <"Rules of Distribution", par. 1). �Debit 'Munich' with 40Y. of the Commission paid by the ceding qompany on the full premium .and 40Y. of 5Y. of the full premium as general expense of the ceding company. Debit the Pool members on the amount retained, with the commission paid by the ~eding company and 5Y. for general expenses. These amounts to be credited to the ceding company . <"Rules of Distribution", par. 2). Credit the ceding company with 30Y. reinsurance commission on any surplus placed with 'Munich' under Surplus Treaty, debiting 'Munich' with the total reinsurance commission <"Rules of Distribution", par. 3>. c. The "Munich's' share shall be cede:td i n original currency on the same terms and conditions as the original insurances <Article 5, Surplus Reinsurance Treaty). ,I The 'Munich' shall pay to the 'Ceding Companies' a fixed commission of 30Y. in respect of the business ceded under this Agreement and the obligatory cessions mentioned in Article 4 above <I~) . For the business accepted by the' Ceding Companies' from the G. S. I. S. by way of reinsurance the 'Munich' shall pay its proportionate part of the commissions granted to the G.S.I.S., viz 35Y. for the r Quota Share and 30Y. for the Surplus and 15Y. profit commission on the combined results of the Quota Share and Surplus Treaties <Id. ). 647

DECISIOH - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 12 - In addition, the 'Munich' shall pay the 'Ceding Companies' on all premiums ceded to it under this Agreement, until December 31, 1967, special commission o:f 5Y., or the actual expense ration o:f the Pool <Pool total costs in relation to Pool total premium income>, whichever is less <Id. >. Furthermore, the 'Munich' shall pay the 'Ceding Companies' a pro:fit commission o:f 20Y. on the net pro:fi t derived :from this Agreement and computed as :follows: INCOME 1. Premiums o:f the current year less cancellations; 2. Reserve :for outstanding losses :from previous year, 3. 40Y. unexpired risk reserve :from previous year. OUTGO 1. Losses paid during the current year; 2. Reserve :for losses outstanding at the end o:f the current year; 3. 40Y. premium reserve :for preiums unearned at the end o:f the current year; 4. Reinsurance commission, special commissions and pro:fit commission according to the :first :five paragraphso:f this Article; 5. Management expenses o:f the'Munich' ,I being 5Y. o:f Item 1> o:f 'Income'; 6. A loss, i:f any, :from previous year(s) to be carried :forward until extinction <Id.>. The 'Ceding Companies' shall make up combined Pro:fit Commission Statements :for this Agreement and the Quota Share 648 A I

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 13 - _, Reinsurance Treaty made with 'Munich' <Id. >. ' In the event of this Agreement being terminated the final profit commission statement shall be made up after the 'Munich' has discharged all its liabilities <Id. >. But petitioners would insist that these pr~visions instead prove that the Pool members themselves may earn profit or income but petitioners' fool itself earns no profit or income. It is urged that the Pool is merely a clearing �house � as defined in Section 31 of the Revenue Regulations No. 2 since all the premiums are received only in a custodial capacity and eventually distributed to the Pool members. We are more impressed, however by the presence of the indispensable elements of a "partnership" in the Pool. What forms the common fund�. are the portions of the premiums of insurance policies and commissions ceded to the Pool. This fund is managed by an Executive Board. It is not as simple as this though for if it were merely so, the arguments of petitioners would have force. It does not turn out that the shares of the Pool members are distributed to them equally or proportionately immediately. Petitioners, as it appears, composed themselves into a Central Body acting through the r 649 _,

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 14 - Executive Board wto put into e��ect the requirements o� the Quota and Surplus Share Treatiesw. The wpartnershipw element o� joint control or management stresses the character o� the Pool as corporation here. The Executive Board possesses these powers and �unctions: 1. To carry on to the best advantage and interest o� the Pool the duties o� distributing the business received between ' the members and wMunichw and to make, execute, sign, seal and deliver �or each o� us all instruments or documents in vrit~ng o� whatever kind or nature which shall be necessary to the proper conduct o� said business: 2. To deposit �unds o� the Pool and to withdraw the same by check, receipt, dra�t or otherwise and to transact any and all business operations and a��airs with any and all banking institutions may be deemed necessary, proper and convenient by our said attorney ~I in-�act: \ 3. To demand, collect and receive ' � r om wMunichw any and all sums o� money which are nov or may herea�ter become due us by reason o� the above reinsurance treaties between the members o� the Pool and the wMunichw: with �ull power and authority to execute and deliver in ,I our behal� �ull , acquittances and receipts �or all 1 payments made to them in our behal�: 4. To settle all questions o� payment or premiums or tosses between the members o� the Pool and the wMunichw in accordance with the terms and conditions o� the Treaties: 650

DECISIOH - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 15 - 5. In the event o� loss~ to pay o�� our share o� said loss in our behal� �rom whatever �unds we may have with the Pool. In short~ the Executive Board has such powers as ordinarily a corporate board o� directors may have~ i� not some powers which such boards do not have. And the expenses �or this Central O��ice are shouldered by all th� Pool Members <Par. 5~ Rules o� Distributton, Exh. K-3>~' ,, risk by j created Further~ since there i~ assumption o� I all the Pool Members, a r~'serve �und was "to guarantee the prompt settlement o� losses" <Exh. K-2>. "The reserve �und shall be used exclusively �or the settlement o� the share o� a loss due �rom the member-company who has �ailed to respond to a cash call within the prescribed period." The pro�its are distributed Qnly a�ter _, the business o� insurance has been transacted and a�ter all losses and expenses o� management have been paid �rom the common �und. As another point~ ther r is continuity o� li�e o� the organization i� the "withdrawal or expulsion" o� any member will not cause a dissolution o� the organization <Mertens~ Chap. 38A - p.14 citing cases>. Thia character generally seen in a corporation is also apparent in the Pool 651

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 16 - considering the provision in Section 1, Article VI on membership which provides: "Should the conduct or action o� any member of the Pool be considered unethical or against the reputation or interests o� the Pool by the Central Body, at a meeting called to discuss the matter, upon concurrence of at least two- thirds <2/3 > o� all the members o� the �' Pool, thi~ Pool Agreement may be rescinded as �ar as the erring member is concerned and formal notice of such rescission shall be given by the Pool to 'Munich'." Addendum No. 2 to the Pool Agreement in Section 1, Art. VI thereof also states in part: "xxx 1� the license of a member should be revoked or suspended, such member shall from the date the license is revoked or suspended, automatically cease to be a member of the Pool. xxx." These conditions no doubt �orm an entity akin to a corporation carrying on a business purpose. We are satisfied that this concern �a:l.ls �airly within the context of a �corporation" as defined. The fact that the Pool does not retain any pro�it or income does not obliterate an antecedent �act, that of the Pool being used in the transaction o� business �or profit. It is apparent, and petitioners admit, that their association or coaction was indispensable in the transaction o� the business. In their words, the establishment of a pool "is dictated by the need for said insurance 652

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 17 - companies to pool their resources together i� they expect to capture some insurance business". I� together they have conducted business, pro�it must have been the object as, indeed, pro�it was earned. Though the pro�it was apportioned among the ni'embers, this is only a matter o� consequence, as it implies that pro�it actually resulted. _, What has been said above can likewise be applied �or the other items in issue. The withholding tax at source on alleged dividends to the �oreign corporation, - Munich, is sustainable. Withholding o� taxes as pointed out in the related provisions, Sections 24 <b), 53< b)< 2), and 263 is not required in case o� reinsurance premiums ceded to �oreign insurance corporations. What is being taxed here, however, are not reinsurance premiums but surplus pro�its, �or s~mply, dividends are but such. As had been said, reinsurance premiums in their pure form were not received by Munich. Under the Quota Reinsurance Treaty and the Surplus Reinsurance Treaty the premiums are subject to deductions for expenses, costs, commissions payable to the Ced�ing Companies, and Munich's proportionate 0��/v share in any loss. To this effect, there is an agreement that the expenses of the Central 653

DECISIOH - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 18 - shall be borne 40Y. by Munich and 60Y. by the Pool <Paragraph 5, Rules of Distribution>. Under Article II, both of the Quota and Surplus Reinsurance Treaties, the Pool is obliged to render quarter statements of accounts, showing all premiums, original costs, losses, commissions taken into account. In settling the accounts, a premium reserve (40Y. of the ne~ reinsurance premiums <reinsurance premiums ceded less cancellations> retained as per Quota Reinsurance Treaty, Article 12; and SOY. of the net reinsurance premiums as per surplus Reinsurance Treaty, Article 12> shall be ,.. taken into consideration. Incidentally, the Pool is obliged to pay interest on the premium reserve at two percent per annum to Munich. The tax of P89,438.68, on the other hand is a .. lOY. withholding tax on dividends paid � to Pool members. The explanation being proposed by petitioners would not matter now in the face of the above conclusions arrived at by the Court. We now pass upon the issue of prescription. Petitioners in this case assert that the Pool filed information return of exempt organization on April 14, 1976 and it was not until November 11, Reckon/v 1981 that they became aware of the assessment notice and demand dated March 27, 1981. 654

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4039 - 19 - therefore, the period from April 14, 1981 the date of f i ling the information return, more than five years had elapsed. They therefore argued that prescription has set in pursuant to the provision o f t he National Internal Revenue Code. We find this argument unavailing to petitioners because the taxpayer cannot be located at the address given in ~ the information return filed and for which reason there was delay in sendi ng the assessment. It must be stressed that this is one of the instances which suspends the running of the prescriptive period set forth by then Section 333 of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended by P.O. No. 69, which in part per tinent reads: "Sec. 333. Suspension of runnipg of statute. - The running of the statute of limitations provided in Section 331 or 332 on the making of assessment and the beginning of distraint or levy or a proceeding in court for collection, in respect of any deficiency, shall be s uspended for the period during which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is prohibited from making the assessment or beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court, and for sixty days thereafter; xxx; when the taxpayer cannot be located in the address given by him in the return filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected; ~. ~ � ~. <Underscoring supplied> 655

_, '~ ' DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 20 - On this basis, respondent is not barred �rom assessing and collecting the taxes due �rom the Pool. WHEREFORE, the � Petition �or Review is denied as the decision o� the Commissioner o� Internal Rev enue is SUSTAINED. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Man.ila, October 19, 1992. ~\.YXC4 ~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge WE CONCUR: GRUBA Judge 656

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4039 - 21 - CERTIFICATION I hereby certi�y that this decision was reached a�ter due consultation among the members -o� the Court o� Tax Appeals in accordance with Section _, 1�.3, Article VIII o� the Constitution. �,. ~\Q~~ - ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court o� Tax Appeals .l ) 6 5 7 �~