CTA Case No. 3678 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI PPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY .) PROGAM REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Petit i. o ner', C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, )( - - - - Res pon de nt . - - )( DE C s 0N Thi.s c<:\r~F.' involv es a defjciency income tax \Y77 ~nd 1~78 in the total a mo unt of P300,93B.B3. !'he ant r>cede?nt f;:,ct s at'e as fo 11 o ws: Pf~ti tio net' is a ' domestic corporation engaged in t: h e t'eal estate b u siness. Petit i onet' entered into an aqt'eement ~�Jit h P�r'pctet' & Ga mble Philippine. .I Manufacturinq Corporatio n whereby the former agreed to lP.ase ce1��t ai.n t'e a.J. pt'opet'ties located in To n do, tvlardl.a; Makati and Baguio City in fa v or of t h e The Contt'act of Lease stip ul ates that "all. '! ' ~f_ lan~, includinq those which may be lev ied on t h e '. 241

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 2- rn� 0 n (! l ' t y wa J. 1 s, ~-h .~_t_h ~ t" the LESS.E.S:_ includi n g such t axes, assessments and a ny othe>t' imp osts on the buildings, installations, imr:n��ovP.me nt en" m.:lchi'net�y o n the le ased pt'opet�ty . " 1 1-~� rw th e yeat� s 1975, 1977 and 1978, petitioner II pa. id the t�eal pt�opet�ty taxes du e ft�o m the le ased The official t�eceipts we t�e in the name of petitioner� . The le ssee, Proctet� & Ga mble Plvlc , t� ei mbut''Sf'c:l the amount of t�ea l p t�ope t"ty taxes o .:-:~id by petitionet� in accot�da n ce wi th the tet�ms ,3q1 �' f? e d upon in t h e contt� act of lea se. Th e real r.:wnp E? J���l~ y ta><e s wet��e neve t� deducted ft� om the gt�oss incom e of petitioner. Un Decem bf.' t' C:~ 1 , 1981, pet]tionet� t�eceived ft�om the Burea u of Inter~al Rev e nue two a ssess ment l~tt 0t� s both date d Oc tob er 14, 19 81 one for alleged ci efici f~ ncy inco me taxes in the total amount of . P ~:;; 0 0, '] 3 B. 8 3 and t h e o t h e t� f o t� d e f i c i en c y bus i n e s s taxes in th e to tal amount of P14,698. 2 0 both th' e fiscal yeat�s ending .June 30, 1976, 1.977 and 1978. 3 On Janu at�y 20,' 1 I 1982, p.,.etitioner' filed �� a orot e s t with res pect to the alleged Deficiency Incom~ Ta x Asses sments fo~ 1 976- 1978, in th e su m of E x h . F -�=:. ,. E xhs. G, G- 1 to G-38 . E xh s. A, A-1 to A-7, PP� 5-9, CTA recor d.

DECI SI ON C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 . - 3- But it did not conte st the Deficiency Bu si nes s Ta>< ~~ ss e!;isments fat~ the same pel�' i nrl. In f21ct , petitionet�' even admits lie:\bilit,y with to the business tax assessments .J totallina � P14,698.20. Petitioner paid the amount of Pl4,6'38.20 , t~epl�~ese nting deficiency fixed taxes ll fm' t he yeat~s 1976- 1'378, evidencP.d by Rev enue Tax I f-l ece i. pt No. 1 0 033105 anr:l Confit'mation Receipt No. lhe in come tax assessments fot~ the yeat~s 1'376, � 1 977 ~ nd 1978 a re itemi ze d as follow s : 6 Net taxable. inco11e pel' retu1�n P2, 135,106.48 Add: Unallowable deductions and/or additional inC DIP P 11,855.11 Real e s t<~te taxes Docutentat�y/ science taxes ..J~ pO~~-QQ --~I, J~~.JJ Net taxable incoee per invest igation P2t2?2!_~64. 59 Ttlx due thereon p 767,863.00 p 43,417. 9? Less: Taxes already ra id oer return Deficiency inco e tax _J3Z, 2a1�.9.Q 14~ interest (42~ ~axi1u1l p 30,576.00 __ ___ J?.~.~l~-~ L~.LJ Net taxable inco11e pet' return P2166't1881. 73 Add : Unallowable deductions and/or additional --�-2-4-8�'-06-3-�.1-3- inco1e I' ~~ 9l?1_944. 86 Real est ate taxes ..... Net taxabl e inco1e per invest igation "'� Exhs. H and B-- 1, pp. 10-12, CTA t~ecot~d. ,, p . 2 0 2, BIR record. Exhs. A, A- 1 to A-3, p . 5, CTA record.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 4- Tex dul! thl!re on P1,020 1 704.00 p 126,277. 19 less: Taxes alre3dy oaid per return �- - 9~,_~�_'t_. 9.Q Deficil!ncy inco�e tax p 88,140.00 14:( int. fr. 10/1&/77 to 7/31/BO 20%int. fr. 8f1/BO to 10/16/80 (,ax. 3 years) 34,474.80 3l. ~~2.39 .1 _9_.} 8 Net taKable incolll! pet' financial statuent P2173~ 1 659. 00 Add: Unallowable d!!ductions and/or additional incoae ,, Real estat~ taxl!s __ e9, "?Q~.J� Net taxable inco1e per investigation ~L815 '..~~5�_~6 Tax due thereon PI, 116, 145.00 L!!ss: Taxes already paid per return .l,_Q~~s!J~..9.Q Defici ency inco~ e tax p 87, 947.00 14): int. ft�. 10/Hi/78 to 7/31/80 22,052.92 20% int. fr . B/1/BO to 10/16/Bl (tax. 3 years) � __ 2J, _giJ._~ -� � !4~~~1J!_7.g Tota l A1ount D1Je and Collectible p.~~)-~-~ 83 On Auqu st c~5, 1983, petition e r~ t~eceived a copy o f the Wal~ l�~ ant of Distt~ aint of Pet~sonal Proper ty a nd Warrant of Levy on Real Property issued 'by D eput y Commis si onet~ Tomas C. Toledo. 7 The service .J oi" thE? wal ~ t~ant s is tantamount to the deci s ion of r~ !? s p n n cl e n t d e n y .\ n q i t s p r o t ,e s t . Thus, on Septe mber 1':383' p et i t i on e t~ f i 1 e d a pet i t ion wi t h m~elimin a t~y injunction with t~espect to the a(l eo ed deficiency income tax assessments for 1976- 1. 978 . ,, ' Petitionet~ alleged that t"he t~eal estate taxes p .::lir.J fot~ the yeat~s 1976, 1977 and 1978, although t~ e i mbut~ s e d by t h e 1 e s s e e , wa s n e v e t~ c 1 a i me d as a 7 pp. 2 07-210, BIR record. 24�~

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 5- d Pciu ct i. on . l "he reimbur se ment did not result in any "\: <:?. >' ;:~ I ) J ~-~ i n co me n Tl t h f? p a t' t o f t he p e t i t i o ne t' . () S t' e 1:1 C:'\t' cl S t h e c:l i !~ a J J. 0 \'II e d d f.l C Um en t r:H ' y S t am p S t a>< <~ ~; � p e t i t i on e t "� a 1 l e ~~ e d t h a t t h e s e we t' e act u a 1 1 y i n c �..l i � n:::> ci and p a i d on c e t' t i f i cat e s o f s t o c ~< i s sued bv th e stock dividends dt_tl y II d e c l at' e d t o i t s s t o c k h o 1 d e r� s � Thet'efol�' e, the same !~ hr:J �J I.r.i be allowed as a valid deduction to gross in comP . Re spondent contends that petitioner clai med as a d educ tion fr o m its gross income pay ment s for real ta><es in the amounts of P71,855. 11 , P 2 4 B , 0 53 . 13 an d P80,703. 16 for the fi scal ye~ rs e nd i 11 n June 3 0 , 1976, June 30 , 1977 and Ju ne 30, � 1 'T7 8 , t' espe c tiv e 1y, and the documentat'Y stamp s tax of P15, 503.00 fot' the! fi seal yeat' ending June 30, P etiti on e r has the burden of proof to show tha t i t is entitled to the deductions claimed. All pre s umptions are in favor of the correctness of t~x asse ss me nts . The r�ecot'd s of respondents , show that the asse ss ments issued ' ag'ainst petitionet' wa s broi..tght .... a bou t a s a t'e s ult of an e><amination conducted by l�' e s pon d en t ' �s 1�' e v e n u e e x am i n e r p �.w 5 u ant t o Let t e r o f nuth rwi ty No. E:1 3 127HR dated Ma1��ch 3, : 1980 . The n e J�' tinr.?. nt p ot�t io n o f the "FINDINGS" of t'e sponde nt' 5 240

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 6- J, �:::r7 1'380 is presented hereunder, l.- ... "1 . Sut.:.1j 0ci; cot~ pot~at ion was f o r� med o n ,June l i~ ~ t~:J7 .t~. ' I� 2. r. 1�t1 c\ t t ~l e s a i rj cot~ o t"' ,3 t i o n h a s Uwee ( 3) maj ot" stockholdel-�S n .?.l.m e ly, � 0vala Corp . , AEA Dev . Corp . and Pro c ter & l!,"'.\ mble f.::OMC, whi:J controls 9'3 . 99'1- of subjec t corpor~t ion . 3. That s �Jb j ect co\�"pOt"at ion ent et"ed i n to a contt"C'\Ct of l ease with Pt~oct e t" & Ui�". mbJ. e PIYIC, one of the st od<ho ldl'n-�s of t h!~ fit"m. 4. Tha t the 1 ea s e contt"c"''c t '= ti. !Ju .l. at~?s that all municipal, city and na t i onal taxes du e on said property lease d sh~ll be borne by the Lessee. 5. That all real e s tate taxes were pa id by Program Realty & Dev. Co rp. which wI? t" f? 1 at; e t" c h i'n~ g e d t o and s u b s e q u en �t 1 y rD imbur~ed by PMC, th e le ssee . 6. That the t"eal e s tate t a x rece ipts had ProR~am Realty & De v � Co t"p. ~s payor of the taxes. 7. Th,::.t a stod< dividend and i.nct��ease i n capitalization wet�� e effected in 1977 anrl the correspdnding docu mentary & S cie nc e Stamp taxe s due th ereon paid by n y .C\ La Cot"p. and subsequent 1 y cha.t" ged to l'i~ and paid by the respecti ve stockholders. 8. That su bject taxpay er has nevet" '. ! } paid the Pt"i vilege <sic> tax as a Re a l Esta te Dea le t". J 9. That Pt"octet" ( sic >��. & Gamble P MC , hav i ng a sizeable investment in subject co\�"f-10l�"at ion t"ece i v e s a t"e gu 1 at" quat"t et" 1 y d ivide n d which is subject to the 10'1- r:� i.n a l Tax 11-Jhile claiming totall y the \�"e nta l ex penses paid to the Lessot" to 2� 4�U-

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 7- v�J h i c h thPy al ~ e pat~ t o~-Jne1 ��� s, l'' f?dU!;;inn t h eit~ tax liability .. 11 Respo~dent pointed as basis for the as s essment ~:; e t ' t i. o n 7 Lf� ' o �f' r~ e v e n u e Re g u 1 i3. t i o n N o � 2 , t ll e t e x t o f t�.'hi. ch is cited her~eundet~, to wit: 11 SEC. 74. Rentals. Wh et~e a leasehold is acquired for bu siness p tw p o =�e s f o 1~ a spec i f i e d s u m, t h e purchaser may take as a deduction in his .J t~et twn a n a l i quo t pat~t of such sum each y f? at' , b '"' s e d o n t h e n lt'mb e t~ o f y e ,3 t~ s t h e lease ha!; to t~u n. Taxes paid by a tenant to at� for a landlord for business p t� opet�t .v at�e additional rent and constitute a deductible item to the tenant and taxable income to the landlot�d~ the amount of the tax being deductible by the latte~ The cost borne by a lessee in erectinn buildinqs or mr31-< in g pet~m,:m ent i mpt~o v e ment s on qt~ o unci of which he is 1 esse e is he 1 c:l to be a capi tal investment and not deductible as a business expense. In ot~clet~ t o retut~ n to such ta><pay e t' � hi s invest ment of capital , an annual deduction ma~' be me:Hie f t' o m g t' o s s i nco me � o f an am o u n t eo u a J. t o the cost of such impt�oveme nts divided by the number of years remaining of th e term of lease, Cl.nd such deduction sh,:\11 be in lieu of a deduction for depreciation. If the t�emaincJet' of the tel"~m of lC?a s o is ~�we<:tt et' tha n the pr o bab 1 e 1 i f,e of' t h e buildin qs erected, or o f the improvements made, this deduction shall tal<e th e fo t�� m of an allowance fo r dept'eciatio n." <Italics r.:wovided. > Aft et' the pres entat ion of pe titi oner's evidence, t'espondent waived ltis right to present hi s evidence. Instead he sub mitted the case based on the pleadinqs and t he BIR records.

J; 'l ' ~ DECISION ~ C.T. A. CASE NO . 36... 78 - 8- T1e issues p l�~ esent e cl fat~ t~eso luti on a1�� e as fDJJo~~s: l. W hethet~ Cll ' not the docume nta t�� y and scie nc e t axes paid fot~ th e issuance of s tock divide nd s in 1':37 5 cops -t;it utes a valid d ed u cti -on t-o I petitione r's gross ihc om e; and .) , .� Wh ~ th er ): reimbur seme nts by lessee I �I' ( or ~ot of ~�~ rea l pr operty tax ~s paid by petitione r o n the real �" pro pert y s u bje~t mattet' of the 1 ease con tt~ act constit ut e additional incom e of the petitioner for th~? Yf~�:'H'S 1':37 E..; 1.':377 and 1':J7B. Wt> s h<d 1 fit'-st d isc uss th e fil�"�!; t i ss u e. The a-r' t' 1.1 l r? :i. s c.i o c~ u�me n t y � an d s c i en c e s t a mp t a >< e f..; a r e ch?d uctible bu siness expenses. [See S ection 30(c ) (1) 1 NH<C. ..1 The t'ec ot' ds of th :i.'s case wi 1 J. t'eve.;-\1 that petitio n er did not deduct the docu menta ry and science st amp ta><es paid on the issuan ce of stock J endi n p June 30, l ':375. dividends fo r th~ � y ear . in th e Audited Financi al Statements of pet it ionet', the Income Statement endinq June 30, 1975, no1�' in its Income Tax Retm'n will s how th at the total am oun t of P1 5,503.00, repre se nting the � d ocumentary and scie n ce stamp taxe s paid �fat' 19if.,, wa s evet~ deducted in jt s gt'oss income for ~h at same_ year . (

�j DECISI ON C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 - 9- l ' r-: � .i. Tl 'J E~ S t i. [1 c:1 t i D T'l the findin~~s of th e ~ecnnd eHaminer sho w th ~ t "th e document ;;:,, -- y and ~.; ci<)l1Ce st;::. m p�~ t':I IOCJI_tnting to P:l 5,~:i03 .. 00 i nr:-1.\ l' t"Pcl ftw' t5 <)Ci�< dividenrls du Jy a n d i ssue d to s toc:l<hnJ.de l�"s in 197b i !:, a valid deduction aq.:dns-t t he t<::~.xpa ye r'' s inco me. " 9 I low e vel�" , ~ft e t" ca l�"e ful e Xc::tlll i nation, the Co r_n-�t found th a t the amount thus r.Ji::li.d no t deducted p e t i t i o n e t" ' s qt" OSS inc nm<> fo1 ' 1'-:nb. Th En�"Gftn"e~ the doc um entc':\l "Y ancl c.:cif? llL:<? StdiTif) taHeS s hould not h .::IV�! b <?en di!;c-::\lJ. owed consirlrn�i. n g th.-::\t the sa me was n P-V!.H" clai mf? d as a d ed 1.1ct io n. 1- tH" wh j_1 e i t is t r��ue th at doc um ent: c':\l"Y and sc i. ence s tarnr. t ax es at'e valid deductions to q r� o s s -j_ Tl c- () Ill ''! � nothjnq in t h �~ t' e co t"cl s of t hi ~; cr.:tse sho w the . S co:\!Tie deduct eel by net it i onet' � . l~espondent did not even in�ta~t"poseci a n y ob .i P.r.tio n to n e t i. 1.; j o 1; e t" ' s i' o t' m;,;. 1 o f f e t' o f e v i d e n c t" i n s 1.�1p r:1 o t�� t o f it~; case . NPit h er did h e pre se nt any eviden ce to re but th e evidence of petitioner. As a matter" of fact, respo ndent merely submitted the case based on the p~ea dinq s and the records of this case. We see no why the documentary �and sciPnce stamp tax es were di sa llowed E xh. l.. -- 1, p. >:::b1, BI !�~ t'ecot'd. 24J

DECISION C. T.A. CASE NO. 3678 10 - IJv l'' C' c� r>o rn1Pnl 'r.' IH! n i. t fact i t wa s n ot evPn clai med ~-J :it h t~e!'". nect to the second issue, i t ~AJCJuld be b<.?st tel cite th!? tr~a ns;::~ction th at gave t~ i se to the . ..� a ll~~ od defi ci~nc y income tax as s essments fo r 1976- 1.Tl8. . It was aqt~eed upon by the pat~ties that taxes i ncr.r.t'' l��e tl and impo sed on the lea sed rw o p !" 1.. l; j f? s s h.::~., l be fen~ th e account o. f �the 1 esse e. 'f f o v� t h e t' e i mbUt's !?men t o f t h e am o u n t s p a i d t h e t ' e for . T he Jr.> s~.;ee t"��! im br..wsed th e amounts thu s paid . The l' t a>(e s ne vet' deduct ed by lH~ t i. t �i. n n e t' f 1' n m its r,woss in cn me . Income St ~ t G m e nts of p etit ioner for th e oeri od endjng Jun e ..\0 ~ L :l1 C~ t o J '� ITi c: 3 0, 1 'J 7 B d i d n o t t' e f 1 e c t a s an pr op e rty taxes pa id for t hat ner�ind . Th e same is tt'ue w ith the In co me Ta'x H !) t '.t ;�Tr !" of pet i t i one t' covEn~ j_n q the same peri o d whi c h is the sub jec t matter of thi s case. the amounts paid by the lessee 011 taxes paid by p~?titinnet' thet' e see ms to be no basi s why these s hould be tl-~~::-la te cl as additional income con sider ing 250

DEC I S I O N C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 11 - income. Note that th~ amount intwe to the of b l..\ t in favor~ of th.e oov '" l"nmen t who t~ec e 1 ved the t a>< e 5 paid for~ t~ea 1 pl��'opr;;��'t i E�S l P i.:\S Pd. ;J TF.'IHI?S paid on t~e a 1 pt~o per~ t i e s shal J. be bot~ n e by the lessPe om~s uant to the pt~ovision of the c n n t r�' <?. c t o f l e a s e � Thus, t~ e i mbut~ semen t s of t a>< e s mi:\ d e by t h e 1 e s s e e f m~ m pat~ t o f t~ en t e x p e n s e s � Ch-c:li. T1i3l�~i. J. y~ �the t��e imbr_n~5ements s h a l l fot~ m oc:n~t of t' e r1 t .:d i n c o mG o n t h I? , par~ t o f t h e 1 e s s o t' � At the time. t h f? 1 e s sot~ can claim as a valid ri f? ciur:.~ ti.on f1 �� om i t s ~;woss income the amount of r~eal m "nrJ"i'' ty ta><P~~ paid. Howe vet'. because of the p8CIJ l :l C:l.l"'� c i l�'c u m ~;ta n 1:1~ e of t h i s cc?.se, oet i t i onel~ did ~ not dr~ cluct thP amount of t~eal pt'or:Jet�'ty ta><es i t n,:.dcl hH' the yt>,=tl ~ s 1975, 1.'3Tl anc:l :1.978. . :i. t i ~; a p p i:n�� r> n t t li a t: n o t h i n q wa s g '"' :i. n e rJ ft� o rn t h i 5 tl�',::>.n si'\r.i;ion since nc' ithinq was deducted ft~om grogs incom t:>, It would have been different if petitio ne r actu~ tlv deducted the amount of real property taxes paid and did not t~ec o r d and t~ep ot~t as pat~t of its .. In income the amount t'ei mbm~sed by the les see. th.?.t c ase, . petitione t' would have gai ned ft~om the t r' '" n E .:, c t i o n b v n o t t~ e p o t~ t i n g a s ad d i t i o n a 1 t' e n t a 1 25 .i

DECISION C.T~A . CASE NO. 3678 12 - .J t~hat was p a id by p e t i t i o n e t' to the govet'nment in tel""ms of t'ea 1 Pt'Op!?t'ty taxes wet'e met'ely t'ei.mhu Y' Sed by the lessee. Thus ~ it was not n ece s s at' Y fot' the petitionet' to deduct the t' ea 1 '� taxe s as an expense. We at'e eve n pet'su a ded by the findings of RevE-~nue Examinet', Mt'. Ed qat' Clavet'ia, in his on the re- inve �; t iqat ion of petitionet'' s ca s e, pet' t in ent portion of which is hereunder reproduced: 10 " ~.::. Th e t'e i mbut's ement s mac:le by the 1. r~ s s e e t o t h e t a >< o a y e t' f o 1"' t' P. a 1 e s t a t e t ,'.\Xf:?<; on the 1�' Pi0\ l pt'Dpe1���ty 51.lbject of the ~..". J(~ ;"se constitute an additional income to th e ti:."l><p a v et�' fot' 1975, 1977 & 1978 but t h l�? u n d !? t ' s i n n P c:l e x .:~ mi n e t' s e e n o t' e a s o n 1�.1h y t h e . p t' f! v. i o u s e x am i n e t' a 1 1 o wf2 d i t o n 1 y .::1~;; an in c ome ~o-Jh e n the amount of the tax is an expen~e and being deductible by the t ax o <:1. y F.H' h en c e , g i v i n g t' i s e t o n o .:1 dditional taxable i'ncome." We agree with the second findings as reported above. The fir's t examinet' failed to considet' the taxe s paid fot' t'eal pt'operty as an expense on the pat't o f t h e 1e s s Ot' � This conclusion does not run countet' to the pt'o vision of Section 74 of Revenue .�. F~equli::\tion No . 2 fot' it states: "Taxes paid by a �t<-~ n .;.m t; t o o t ' fot' a landlot'd fot' business pt'Clpe t' ty at'e a c:fditio�nal l"'ent and constitute a deductible item to the tenant and tax able income to the 1 ':.. Exh. L -i:: , p. C.:6 1, BIR !-'ec ot'd.

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 13 - J ,-=:tncllq, d. thE e rn ount of theta>< beinn deductible by -!; h r.> .I ., 1-. t (? t' � " lf the rei mburs ements for t~xes made hv thr:. l e sser�' fo ;��ms oa t�t o f additiona l incom e on ,,d l. nv�F:rl as ::1. dPductin n on the Pi'H't of the less ot'. ' .Thu~= . i t stat!?~' "the amount 0f tt=~.x bl:'i.nq deductible IJ v t h r> 1 at t e ;�� (+;h e J. a.n d 1 a t'd) � " Thet' e be ino no r:: J i'd rn Pel bv thP n <~ t i t i n T1 P t ' ) t=~.cld jtional 'l P ':': O!Mr.l P.F.\t' rlf:'d . :r t is c leat� thc\t the add itional L\ 0.1 f11.!. l l t: <= l''' E�C: P i. 1/ r. [j hv the lessor� 1' P i. mb �..w ::: e me n t s .:; n d n o t h 'i n o mo 1' e � WHE.REFORE, the petition fot' t' eview is het'eby GRANTED. The de f i c i enc y income tax asses s men t s issued by respondent for the years ending June 30, 1'375 . �rune 30, 1977 and June 30, 1978, in the total am aunt of P300 , '338 . 83, are here by cance 11 ed. The Wat�rant of Di s tt�ain t on Personal Pl'' opet�ty and the Warrant of Levy on Real Property are hereby lifted permanently. No costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, , March 26, 1993. '� cc~a.~~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Pt�esiding Judge 250

DECISION C.T.A. CASE NO. 3678 14 - WE CONCUR: Judge f ~~AkNUEL RA~MOpN i0.tDE(/~ ~A Associate Ju ge CERTl:Fl:CRT:tON I hereby certify that this decision was reac hed after due consultation among the members of th e Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. ~~Q.~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Pt"esiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals ...