Sitel Philippines Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 10136. May 19, 2023.] SITEL PHILIPPINES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : The Petition for Review prays that judgment be rendered: 1. Declaring petitioner entitled to a refund in the amount of P2,822,622.75, representing unutilized input (value-added tax) VAT arising from petitioner's domestic purchases of goods (other than capital goods) and services and purchases of capital goods attributable to zero-rated transactions for the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017; and 2. Ordering respondent to grant petitioner a refund in the amount of P2,822,622.75. 1 THE PARTIES Petitioner Sitel Philippines Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. 2 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a VAT-registered taxpayer, under Tax Identification Number (TIN) 208-780-708-000, with address at Ground Floor, One Julia Vargas Bldg., Ortigas Home Depot Complex 1, Julia Vargas Ave., Brgy. Ugong, Pasig City, Metro Manila. 3 HTcADC It is also registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) as an Information Technology (IT) Enterprise at the Baguio Economic Zone, Wynsum Corporate Plaza, One Julia Vargas Building, Eastwood City Cyberpark, Robinsons Cyberpark, Eton Cyberpod Corinthian, Robinsons Luisita, and SM Baguio Cyberzone Building. 4 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue, represented by the Litigation Division of the BIR-National Office who may be served with pleadings and court processes at 7th Floor, Litigation Division, BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 5 THE FACTS On March 29, 2019, petitioner filed with the BIR, its Application for Tax Credits /Refund (BIR Form No. 1914), 6 and the letter of even date, 7 with a duly accomplished Revised Checklist of Mandatory Requirements on Claims for VAT Refund , 8 requesting for a refund petitioner's previously incurred and unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the 1st quarter of taxable year in the amounting of P2,822,622.75. Thereafter, on June 27, 2019, petitioner received the letter dated June 7, 2019 of Ms. Maria Luisa I. Belen, the OIC-Assistant Commissioner for the Assessment Service of the BIR, denying with finality petitioner's administrative application for VAT refund for the period from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, in the amount of P2,822,622.75, for lack of factual and legal basis. 9 The present Petition of Review was filed on July 26, 2019. 10 Respondent's Answer was filed on September 6, 2019, 11 interposing the following special and affirmative defenses, to wit: "SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 4. Respondent adopts the abovementioned admissions and denials as part of his Special and Affirmative Defenses. The petition must be dismissed for failure of petitioner to substantiate its administrative claim for refund. 5. Since respondent rendered a Decision in the administrative level, the Honorable Court's jurisdiction becomes strictly appellate in nature. Applying by the case of Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Total Gas, for brevity), the Supreme Court ruled: 'A distinction must, thus, be made between administrative cases appealed due to inaction and those dismissed at the administrative level due to the failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents. If an administrative claim was dismissed by the CIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice/request, then the judicial claim before the CTA would be dismissible, not for lack of jurisdiction, but for the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the claim at the administrative level. When a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince the CTA that the CIR had no reason to deny its claim.' 6. Applying the foregoing to the instant case, since respondent rendered a decision, the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court shifts from a trial court to an appellate tribunal. The Honorable Court should confine itself to whether the findings of respondent are consistent with law. 7. In the Total Gas case, the Supreme Court is quite emphatic that there can be no such first instance trial stating: 'It, thus, becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show the CTA that not only is he entitled under substantive law to his claim for refund or tax credit, but also that he satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim. It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit a document requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA .' (Emphasis supplied) 8. As a matter of fact, in these type of cases, the Supreme Court confined judicial review to the same documents submitted at the administrative level. This was stressed as follows: 'It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that is administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit documents requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA.' 9. As provided by the Supreme Court in the Total Gas case, a judicial review is not a trial de novo in the sense that a totally new first instance trial is conducted. Rather, it is an inquiry into whether the findings of the administrative bodies are consistent with law. 10. In a more proper perspective, while the CTA case is a judicial review, it is trial de novo in the sense that litigants must present anew their evidence in accordance with the Rules of Court. As the CTA, under Section 8 of Republic Act 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals) is mandated as a court of record, the evidence submitted to the BIR must be properly identified and offered. This was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corporation stating: 'Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is described as a court of record. As cases filed before it are litigated de novo , party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases. No evidentiary value can be given the purchase invoices or receipts submitted to the BIR as the rules on documentary evidence require that these documents must be formally offered before the CTA This Court thus notes with approval the following findings of the CTA: x x x [S]ale of gold to the Central Bank should not be subject to the 10% VAT-output tax but this does not ipso facto mean that [the seller] is entitled to the amount of refund sought as it is required by law to present evidence showing the input taxes it paid during the year in question . What is being claimed in the instant petition is the refund of the input taxes paid by the herein petitioner on its purchase of goods and services. Hence, it is necessary for the Petitioner to show proof that it had indeed paid the said input taxes during the year 1991. In the case at bar, Petitioner failed to discharge this duty. It did not adduce in evidence the sales invoice, receipts or other documents showing the input value-added tax on the purchase of goods and services . xxx xxx xxx Section 8 of Republic Act 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals) provides categorically that the Court of Tax Appeals shall be a court of record and as such it is required to conduct a formal trial (trial de novo) where the parties must present their evidence accordingly if they desire the Court to take such evidence into consideration. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 11. Since a Decision has been rendered in this case denying petitioner's administrative claim for refund for failure to substantiate the same, petitioner cannot submit documents it did not submit at the administrative level. Moreso, the Honorable Court is confined to a more limited issue of whether the denial was proper given the evidence submitted at the administrative level. Petitioner is not entitled to refund in the amount of P2,822,622.75. 12. As stated in the Denial Letter dated 7 June 2019, addressed to Atty. Mark Roland C. Domingo, evaluation of the documents submitted on the subject claim for refund disclosed the following findings and observations, to wit: Deductions from the input VAT claimed, viz. : Summary of Deductions Overclaim input tax P336.00 Violation of invoicing requirements pursuant to Sec. 113 (A) in relation to Sec. 110 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended 122,260.17 No project site indicated exceeding 1M 3,494.42 Violation of invoicing requirements pursuant to RMC 16-2007 587,759.24 Amortization of input tax from previous years 218,275.17 Total Deductions P932,125.00 ========== 13. Based on the documents submitted, it was found that the alleged zero-rated sales were realized from the Puerto Princesa Palawan Site. However, the Certificate of Registration attached to the docket of the case revealed that the said Site was registered with the Regular Large Taxpayers Audit Division III-Large Taxpayers Service only on 9 August 2017, which is beyond the period of the claim which is January-March 2017. 14. Moreover, the 'Site' was registered as a 'Facility' (Showroom Customer Service Center). Section 3(8) of the Revenue Regulations No. 7-2012 defined 'Facility' as follows: CAIHTE 'may include but not limited to place of production, showroom, warehouse, storage place, garage, bus terminal, or real property for lease with no sales activity. A facility shall be registered as a branch whenever sales transactions/activities are conducted thereat . Registration of the 'Facility' with no sales activity is not subject to payment of Annual Registration Fee.' 15. On the other hand, 'Branch' per Section 3(7) of the same Revenue Regulations is defined as 'separate or distinct establishment or place of business where sales transactions independently from the HO.' 16. Based on the aforementioned Revenue Regulations, the registration of an entity with the BIR determines the official activities that will be conducted therein. In the case of petitioner, the Palawan Site was registered only as a 'Facility' instead of 'Branch,' thus, the dealings undertaken by the subject site are beyond the scope of its registered activity and therefore not authorized to conduct sales transactions. As further provided by RR 7-2012, a certain 'Facility' should be registered as a 'Branch' when sales transactions/activities are conducted thereat. 17. Moreover, since the registration in the said Site as a 'Facility' was effected only on 9 August 2017, which is beyond the period of claim, the declared sales transactions for the Site has no force and effect and could not be considered as VAT zero-rated sales as contemplated under Section 108(B)(2) in relation to Section 112(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Consequently, the aforesaid circumstances warrant the denial of the petitioner's claim for refund for lack of factual and legal basis. 18. Well to consider, taxes paid and collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) are presumed to have been made in accordance with law, rules and regulations and the burden to prove otherwise is upon petitioner. 19. The claimant has the burden of proof to establish that the factual basis of his claim for tax credit or refund. After all tax refunds, like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer (Citibank N.A. vs. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 280 SCRA 459; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Tokyo Shipping Co., Ltd., 244 SCRA 332, both cited in Benguet Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5392 promulgated October 30, 1998) . 21. Partaking of the nature of exemptions, claims for refund are strictly construed against the claimant and cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language (Sps. Aguilar vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., CA G.R. SP No. 16432, March 30, 1999) . Being in the nature of tax exemptions, these claims are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the claimant and liberally in favor of the taxing authority (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Procter and Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation, 204 SCRA 377) . 22. Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant for the same partake the nature of exemption from taxation (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95) and such, they are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 124 SCRA 1211) ." Respondent transmitted the BIR Records for this case on September 6, 2019. 12 The Pre-Trial Conference was set and held on November 26, 2019. 13 Prior thereto, Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief was submitted on September 16, 2019, 14 while the Pre-Trial Brief for Petitioner was filed on November 20, 2019. 15 On December 20, 2019, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues , 16 which the Court admitted and approved in its Resolution dated January 9, 2020, 17 thereby deeming the termination of the Pre-Trial. The Pre-Trial Order was then issued on January 28, 2020. 18 Trial ensued. During trial, the parties presented their documentary and testimonial evidence. Petitioner offered the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Mr. Ronald Portula, 19 petitioner's Senior Tax Analyst; and (2) Ms. Madonna Mia S. Dayego, 20 the Court-commissioned independent certified public accountant (ICPA). 21 The ICPA's Report was submitted on March 6, 2020. 22 Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence with Motion to Set Commissioner's Hearing via email on August 11, 2020. 23 Respondent posted his Comment (Re: Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence) on August 17, 2020. 24 In the Resolution dated August 26, 2020, 25 the Court granted petitioner's Motion to Set Commissioner's Hearing . Subsequently, in the Resolution dated October 8, 2021, 26 the Court admitted petitioner's offered exhibits, except for Exhibits "P-13", "P-34.1", and "P-34.2", since petitioner only filed mere photocopies thereof. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (of Resolution dated October 8, 2020) on November 3, 2020, 27 praying for the admission of the denied exhibits. Respondent failed to file his comment to the said Motion . 28 In the Resolution dated December 6, 2021, 29 the Court granted petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration , and admitted the previously denied exhibits. For his part, respondent offered the testimony of Revenue Officer Denise R. Dayanan. 30 Respondent filed his Formal Offer of Evidence on March 17, 2022. 31 Petitioner filed its Comment [on Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence dated March 17, 2022] on April 7, 2022. 32 In the Resolution dated May 10, 2022, 33 the Court admitted all of respondent's offered evidence, and directed the parties to file their respective memorandum within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. Respondent's Memorandum was filed on June 3, 2022, 34 while the Memorandum for Petitioner was submitted on June 17, 2022. 35 This case was deemed submitted for decision on June 22, 2022. 36 THE ISSUES The parties stipulated the following issues for this Court's resolution, viz. : "WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF ITS ALLEGED UNUTILIZED INPUT VAT ARISING FROM DOMESTIC PURCHASES OF GOODS (OTHER THAN CAPITAL GOODS) AND SERVICES AND PURCHASES OF CAPITAL GOODS ALLEGEDLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ZERO-RATED SALES FOR THE 1ST QUARTER OF TAXABLE YEAR 2017 IN THE AMOUNT OF P2,822,622.75. a. WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IS CORRECT BASED ON DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT." 37 Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that it timely filed the instant Petition for Review with this Court in accordance with Section 112 (C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997; that petitioner is a VAT-registered entity; that it was engaged in zero-rated export sale of services, other than processing, manufacturing, or repacking goods, during the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017 rendered to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which was paid for in acceptable foreign currency and account for with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) rules and regulations; that petitioner incurred or paid input taxes, which are not transitional input taxes; that the input taxes were not applied against output tax liability during the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017 and in the succeeding quarters; that the claim is filed within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; and that respondent incorrectly denied petitioner's administrative claim for refund. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent contends that the petition must be dismissed for failure of petitioner to substantiate its administrative claim for refund; and that petitioner is not entitled to refund in the amount of P2,822,622.75. THE COURT'S RULING The Petition for Review lacks merit. Petitioner has not shown that respondent should not have denied its administrative claim in the first place. Considering that respondent invokes the ruling of the Supreme Court in Pilipinas Total Gas, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 38 a clarification of the said ruling and its application for the present case must be made. The pertinent ruling states as follows: "At this stage, a review of the nature of a judicial claim before the CTA is in order. In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. CIR , 39 it was ruled x x x First, a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is by no means an original action but rather an appeal by way of petition for review of a previous, unsuccessful administrative claim. Therefore, as in every appeal or petition for review, a petitioner has to convince the appellate court that the quasi-judicial agency a quo did not have any reason to deny its claim . In this case, it was necessary for petitioner to show the CTA not only that it was entitled under substantive law to the grant of its claims but also that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements for an administrative claim for refund or tax credit . Second, cases filed in the CTA are litigated de novo . Thus, a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. Since it is crucial for a petitioner in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, part of the evidence to be submitted to the CTA must necessarily include whatever is required for the successful prosecution of an administrative claim. A distinction must, thus, be made between administrative cases appealed due to inaction and those dismissed at the administrative level due to the failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents. If an administrative claim was dismissed by the CIR due to the taxpayer's failure to submit complete documents despite notice/request, then the judicial claim before the CTA would be dismissible, not for lack of jurisdiction, but of the taxpayer's failure to substantiate the claim at the administrative level. When a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in the CTA is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince the CTA that the CIR had no reason to deny its claim . It, thus, becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show the CTA that not only is he entitled under substantive law to his claim for refund or tax credit, but also that he satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirement for an administrative claim . It is, thus, crucial for a taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place . Consequently, a taxpayer cannot cure its failure to submit a document requested by the BIR at the administrative level by filing the said document before the CTA." (Emphases and underscoring added) Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, when a judicial claim for refund or tax credit in this Court is an appeal of an unsuccessful administrative claim, the taxpayer has to convince this Court that respondent had no reason to deny its claim . Thus, it becomes imperative for the taxpayer to show this Court that not only is it entitled under substantive law to its claim for refund or tax credit, but also that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirement for an administrative claim. As a corollary, it is crucial for the taxpayer in a judicial claim for refund or tax credit to show that its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. aScITE Logically, for the Court to determine whether an administrative claim should have been granted in the first place, this entails a review of the very same documents which were submitted to the BIR in support of the said administrative claim, especially when the denial of the administrative claim was clearly based thereon. In the letter dated June 7, 2019 issued by OIC-Assistant Commissioner Ma. Luisa I. Belen, 40 the latter informed petitioner as follows, to wit: " Evaluation of the documents submitted of the subject claim disclosed the following findings and observations vital to the processing of said claim , to wit: 1. Deductions from the input VAT claimed, viz. : Summary of Deductions Overclaim input tax P336.00 Violation of invoicing requirements pursuant to Sec. 113 (A) in relation to Sec. 110 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended 122,260.17 No project site indicated exceeding 1M 3,494.42 Violation of invoicing requirements pursuant to RMC 16-2007 587,759.24 Amortization of input tax from previous years 218,275.17 Total Deductions P932,125.00 =========== 2. Based on the documents submitted , your client's alleged zero-rated sales were realized from the Puerto Princesa, Palawan Site. However, the Certificate of Registration (COR) attached to the docket revealed that the said Site was registered with the Regular LT Audit Division III-Large Taxpayers Service (RLTAD III-LTS) on August 9, 2017 only, which is beyond the period of claim (January to March 2017). xxx xxx xxx In view of the foregoing facts, we regret to inform [you] that the processing of your client's administrative application for VAT refund for the period from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 in the amount of Php2,822,622.75 is hereby DENIED for lack of factual and legal basis. xxx xxx xxx." (Emphases and underscoring added) Thus, the reasons or grounds for the denial of petitioner's administrative claim are clearly identifiable, and are explicitly based upon the "(e) valuation of the documents submitted " by petitioner. However, it is noteworthy that there is no indication that petitioner presented before this Court the very same documents it submitted to the BIR in support of its administrative claim. This notwithstanding that the parties stipulated the sub-issue of whether the assailed decision is correct " based on documents submitted by petitioner to respondent ," for this Court's resolution. A cursory examination of the Formal Offer of Evidence of petitioner would disclose that no evidence was specifically offered to prove which documents were actually submitted by it to respondent or the BIR. 41 To the Court's mind, the failure of petitioner to present or offer the said documents in evidence is fatal to its case. This is simply because the Court will not be able to review or determine with certainty whether respondent has indeed the factual bases in denying petitioner's administrative claim or whether such denial is correct. To stress, as enunciated in the Pilipinas Total Gas case, petitioner has to convince this Court that respondent had no reason to deny its administrative claim, and that it satisfied all the documentary and evidentiary requirements therefor. Simply put, without the said documents, this Court cannot determine whether the said administrative claim should have been indeed granted in the first place. We cannot simply assume that the documents submitted before this Court are the very same documents presented at the administrative level. This is so because no value is given to documentary evidence submitted in the BIR unless it is formally offered in this Court. 42 Moreover, no evidence shall be considered unless formally offered with a statement of the purpose why it is being offered. 43 The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the evidence submitted against them and take the necessary actions to secure their case. 44 Formal offer means that the offering party shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing its exhibits into evidence, to assist the court in ruling on their admissibility in case the adverse party objects. 45 In sum, petitioner failed to prove its administrative claim should have been granted in the first place. On this score alone, the present Petition for Review must already fail. Nevertheless, even granting that respondent or the BIR should have granted its administrative claim, petitioner still failed to prove before this Court that it is entitled to the claim for refund or tax credit under the substantive law, as enunciated in the Pilipinas Total Gas case. Requisites under the law for the refund or issuance of tax credit certificate of input VAT. Section 112 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by RA No. 10963 46 [otherwise known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act (TRAIN law)], provides as follows: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input 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 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(1) 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 of 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 108(B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. xxx xxx xxx (C) Period within which Refund of Input 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 (30) 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 (90)-day period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code." Pursuant to the above provision, certain requisites must be complied with by the taxpayer-applicant to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT. Said requisites are classified into certain categories, to wit: As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims: 1. the claim is filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made; 47 2. that in case of full or partial denial of the refund claim rendered within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application, the judicial claim shall be filed with this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision. With reference to the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. the taxpayer is a VAT-registered person; 48 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 49 5. for zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b), and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations; 50 As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. the input taxes are not transitional input taxes; 51 7. the input taxes are due or paid; 52 8. the input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, 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 volume; 53 and 9. the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters. 54 Relative thereto, it must be emphasized that in cases filed before this Court, which are litigated de novo , party-litigants must prove every minute aspect of their case. 55 Thus, it behooves petitioner to show compliance with each of the foregoing requisites. As a corollary, the absence of any of the said requisites is a valid ground to deny the refund claim. Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims were timely filed. To reiterate, the first requisite pertains to the filing of a claim for tax refund or tax credit of input VAT before the BIR, within two (2) years from the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. The present claim covers the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017. Counting two (2) years from the close of the said quarter, the following table indicates the pertinent last day for the filing of an administrative claim, to wit: 2017 Period Close of the Taxable Quarter Last Day to File Administrative Claim 1st quarter January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 March 31, 2017 March 31, 2019 Considering that petitioner's administrative claim covering the said period, was filed with the BIR on March 29, 2019, 56 the same was timely made. The second requisite is to the effect that in case of full or partial denial of the refund claim rendered within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application, the judicial claim shall be filed with this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision. Notably, respondent is deemed to have acted on petitioner's administrative claim within the said ninety (90)-day period from March 29, 2019, since the BIR, through OIC-Assistant Commissioner Ma. Luisa I. Belen, issued the letter dated June 7, 2019, 57 denying petitioner's administrative claim. Considering that petitioner received the said letter dated June 7, 2019 on June 27, 2019, 58 the former had until July 27, 2019 within which to appeal the same before this Court. Since the present judicial claim was filed on July 26, 2019, 59 the same is likewise timely made. DETACa Such being the case, petitioner fulfilled both the first and second requisites. However, petitioner cannot be considered as a "VAT- registered person." The third requisite pertains to the taxpayer being a VAT-registered person. In the denial letter dated June 7, 2019, 60 OIC-Assistant Commissioner Ma. Luisa I. Belen states the following: "2. Based on the documents submitted, your client's alleged zero-rated sales were realized from the Puerto Princesa, Palawan Site. However, the Certificate of Registration (COR) attached to the docket revealed that the said Site was registered with the Regular LT Audit Division III-Large Taxpayers Service (RLTAD III-LTS) on August 9, 2017 only, which is beyond the period of claim ( January to March 2017 ). Moreover, said 'Site' was registered as a 'Facility'. x x x." Petitioner counters that the Palawan Site was correctly registered as "facility"; and that even assuming arguendo that the sales which arose from the Palawan Site shall be classified as sales of the Head Office, the same is still zero-rated sale and not VAT-exempt. Petitioner is in error. Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997 reads, in part, as follows: "SEC. 236. Registration Requirements . (A) Requirements . Every person subject to any internal revenue tax shall register once with the appropriate Revenue District Officer: (1) Within ten (10) days from date of employment, or (2) On or before the commencement of business , or (3) Before payment of any tax due, or (4) Upon filing of a return, statement or declaration as required in this Code. The registration shall contain the taxpayer's name, style, place of residence, business, and such other information as may be required by the Commissioner in the form prescribed therefor. A person maintaining a head office, branch or facility shall register with the Revenue District Officer having jurisdiction over the head office, branch or facility . For purposes of this Section, the term 'facility' may include but not limited to sales outlets, places of production, warehouses or storage places. (B) Annual Registration Fee . An annual registration fee in the amount of Five hundred pesos (P500) for every separate or distinct establishment or place of business, including facility types where sales transactions occur , shall be paid upon registration and every year thereafter on or before the last day of January : x x x The registration fee shall be paid to an authorized agent bank located within the revenue district, or to the Revenue Collection Officer, or duly authorized Treasurer of the city or municipality where each place of business or branch is registered. xxx xxx xxx." (Emphases and underscoring added) Based on the foregoing provision, it is clear that every person subject to any internal revenue tax, within a certain period of time, is mandated to register with the BIR, and if such person maintains a head office, a branch, or facility, such registration shall be made with the BIR office having jurisdiction thereover. Moreover, the said person is required to pay an annual registration fee in the amount of P500.00 for every separate or distinct establishment or place of business, which specifically includes " facility types where sales transactions occur ." Thus, on the basis of Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997, a facility is required to be registered with the BIR, and in case sales transactions occur therein, the annual registration fee of P500.00 must be paid. Moreover, implementing the said Section 236 for VAT purposes, Section 9.236-1 (a) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005 61 provides as follows: "SEC. 9.236-1. Registration of VAT Taxpayers . (a) In general . Any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges goods or properties, or engaged in the sale of services subject to VAT imposed in Secs. 106 and 108 of the Tax Code shall register with the appropriate RDO using appropriate BIR forms and pay an annual registration fee in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500) using BIR Form No. 0605 for every separate and distinct establishment or place of business (save a warehouse without sale transactions) before the start of such business and every year thereafter on or before the 31st day of January. 'Separate or distinct establishment' shall mean any branch or facility where sales transaction occur . ' Branch ' means a fixed establishment in a locality which conducts sales operations of the business as an extension of the principal office . 'Principal place of business' refers to the place where the head or main office is located as appearing in the corporation's Articles of Incorporation. In the case of an individual, the principal place of business shall be the place where the head or main office is located and where the books of accounts are kept. 'Warehouse' means the place or premises where the inventory of goods for sale are kept and from which such goods are withdrawn for delivery to customers, dealers, or persons acting in behalf of the business. Any person who maintains a head or main office and branches in different places shall register with the RDO which has jurisdiction over the place wherein the main or head office or branch is located . However, the registration fee shall be paid to any accredited bank in the Revenue District where the head office or branch is registered provided that in areas where there are not accredited banks, the same shall be paid to the RDO, collection agent, or duly authorized treasurer of the municipality where each place of business or branch is situated. Each VAT-registered person shall be assigned only one TIN. The branch shall use the 9-digit TIN of the Head Office plus a 3-digit Branch Code. 'VAT-registered person' refers to any person registered in accordance with this section ." (Emphases and underscoring added) On the basis thereof, for VAT purposes, it is explicit that any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges goods or properties, or engaged in the sale of services subject to VAT under the law must register with the appropriate Revenue District Office (RDO) for every separate and distinct establishment or place of business, save in the case of warehouses without sale transactions. Notably, the phrase "separate or distinct establishment" has been defined to mean "any branch or facility where sales transaction occur " ; and the term "branch" as "a fixed establishment in a locality which conducts sales operations of the business as an extension of the principal office." Correspondingly, a facility is akin to a branch if it conducts sales transactions or operations of the business as an extension of the principal office. Relative thereto, it must be pointed out that it is mandated that any person who maintains a head or main office and branches (as defined) in different places must register with the RDO having jurisdiction over the place where the main or head office or branch is located, and must pay the corresponding annual registration fee of P500.00. HEITAD Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that each VAT-registered person shall be assigned only one TIN; and that the branch shall use the 9-digit TIN of the head office, plus a 3-digit branch code. More importantly, the term "VAT-registered person" is likewise defined to mean "any registered in accordance with" the above-quoted provision. Conversely, if the concerned person is not registered in accordance with Section 9.236-1 of RR No. 16-2005, such person cannot be treated as a "VAT-registered person." Moreover, consistent with Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997 and Section 9.236-1 of RR No. 16-2005, pertinent portions of RR No. 7-2012 62 provide: "SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF TERMS. For purposes of these Regulations, the following words and/or phrases shall be defined as follows: xxx xxx xxx 3. 'Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) ' shall pertain to the system-generated reference index number issued and assigned by the BIR to each and every person registered in its database. x x x. The TIN comprises of a 9 to 13-digit numeric code where the first 9 digits is the TIN proper and the last 4 digits is the branch code . The branch code digits may be increased depending on future systems enhancements and policy declarations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). xxx xxx xxx 6. 'Head Office (HO)' refers to the declared specific or identifiable principal place/head office of business as stated in the Articles of Incorporation/Articles of Partnership/Articles of Cooperation/DTI Certificate of Registration, as the case may be, or, in the absence thereof, the place where the complete books of accounts are kept. x x x. 7. 'Branch' means a separate or distinct establishment or place of business where sales transactions are conducted independently from the HO. For purposes of these Regulations, branch shall include the following: i. Sales outlet or establishment situated in another location/address other than at the HO; ii. Facility with sales activity ; xxx xxx xxx 8. 'Facility' may include but not limited to place of production, showroom, warehouse, storage place, garage, bus terminal, or real property for lease with no sales activity. A facility shall be registered as a branch whenever sales transactions/activities are conducted thereat . Registration of the 'Facility' with no sales activity is not subject to payment of Annual Registration Fee (ARF). xxx xxx xxx SECTION 6. PRESCRIBED PERIODS TO COMPLETE PRIMARY REGISTRATION. Every person subject to any internal revenue tax to be filed/paid periodically shall complete its registration with the BIR as follows: 1. On or before the commencement of business Self-employed individuals, estates and trusts, corporations and their branches , if any: Commencement of business shall be reckoned as defined in Section 3(6) hereof. A person shall be considered to have violated this provision when he/ it proceeded to this stage after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the issuance of Mayor's Permit/PTR by the concerned LGU, or COR issued by the SEC or the date of its first sales transaction prior to its registration . xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing provisions, it is explicit that the term "branch" includes "(f) acility with sales activity ," and that "(a) facility shall be registered as a branch whenever sales transactions/activities are conducted thereat ." Moreover, it is likewise clear that the registration of a branch shall be made on or before the commencement of business, and such rule is considered to have been violated by the taxpayer when the latter proceeded to such state after the lapse of thirty (30) days from, inter alia , the date of its first sales transaction prior to its registration. Anent the TIN of a branch, the same is now made to have an additional four (4) digits representing the branch code, unlike as that mandated under the earlier quoted Section 9.236-1 (a) of the RR No. 16-2005 which only required three (3) additional digits, for the said branch code. Clearly, applying the foregoing provisions in this case, petitioner has not complied with the foregoing provisions, particularly on its Palawan Facility. It must be pointed out that petitioner's Palawan Facility (in Puerto Princesa) was not yet registered at the time of the period of the subject refund claim ( i.e. , the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017), and yet it was able to generate sales therein. The fact that sales transactions were generated in the Palawan site is not disputed by petitioner. Relative thereto, petitioner's witness testified as follows: "JUSTICE SAN PEDRO Yes Chair. Mr. Portula, what exactly are the sales transactions being taxed for which the refund was disallowed? MR. PORTULA The refund which was initially filed with the BIR, ma'am, pertains to input tax transactions on our purchases attributable to zero-rated sales for our Palawan site . So these are the purchases vary in nature, these cover our purchase of goods and our services. JUSTICE SAN PEDRO So including services? MR. PORTULA Yes, ma'am. JUSTICE SAN PEDRO The subject sales transactions took place or were generated from the Palawan site, correct? MR. PORTULA Yes, ma'am. JUSTICE SAN PEDRO There was in fact sales transactions or activities in the Palawan site? MR. PORTULA The Palawan site houses our employees which performs the services but no invoice or official receipt is being issued from the Palawan site. JUSTICE SAN PEDRO Yes. So the services were in fact emanating from the Palawan site but the invoicing was from your head office? MR. PORTULA Yes, your Honors. xxx xxx xxx JUSTICE UY You're just saying there are no issuance of invoices but the services are actually rendered at the Palawan site? MR. PORTULA Yes, your Honor. " 63 (Emphases added) Since its Palawan Facility is a facility where sales transactions occurred, petitioner should have registered the same as a branch with the BIR before the commencement or start of the business therein, and paid the corresponding annual registration fee of P500.00, in accordance with the foregoing provisions, especially Section 9.236-1 (a) of RR No. 16-2005. The fact that petitioner was able to obtain a Certification of Registration of Facility (OCN: 8RC0001131729E) 64 is of no moment. This is so because the same was issued only on August 9, 2017, and thus, it is apparent that the issuance thereof is already after the 1st quarter of taxable year 2017, when the subject sales were made, contrary to the aforequoted provisions regarding the requirement of BIR registration. More importantly, notwithstanding such later registration, the said Palawan Facility was not properly registered with the BIR. In the same Certification of Registration of Facility , 65 it is stated that " No Sales Transactions are conducted in this Facility, otherwise, it shall be registered as a branch office ." In addition, it is noteworthy that the TIN indicated in the same Certification of Registration of Facility does not bear an additional four (4) digits in the TIN, which should represent the branch code. These are indicia that the same Palawan Facility was not registered with the BIR as a branch, and simply as a "facility'', i.e. , with no sales activity. In fine, it is clear that the registration of petitioner's Palawan Facility with the BIR, is not one of a " branch ," as required to be registered under Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997, Section 9.236-1 (a) of RR No. 16-2005, and the pertinent provisions of RR No. 7-2012. Correspondingly, petitioner cannot be considered as a " VAT-registered person ," since its Palawan Facility was not registered in accordance with, and pursuant to, Section 9.236-1 (a) of RR No. 16-2005, both during the 1st quarter of 2017, and even thereafter. As such, petitioner cannot be considered to have complied with the third requisite to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT. In any event, as regards petitioner's contention that the seeming "late registration" of the Palawan Facility should only attract administrative penalties, the same is unfounded. Relative to Section 236 of the NIRC of 1997, Section 258 of the same Code provides as follows: "SEC. 258. Unlawful Pursuit of Business . Any person who carries on any business for which an annual registration fee is imposed without paying the tax as required by law shall, upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not less than Five Thousand pesos (P5,000) but not more than Twenty Thousand pesos (P20,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than six (6) months but not more than two (2) years : x x x." (Emphases added) Based on the foregoing provision, the non-payment of the annual registration fee on time, may subject the concerned taxpayer to criminal liability, with the imposition of a fine ranging from P5,000 to P20,000, and imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years. Thus, there can be no merit in the contention of petitioner that any seeming late registration of its Palawan Facility should only attract administrative penalties. Consequently, considering this Court's findings that petitioner is not a VAT-registered person, it becomes unnecessary to look into petitioner's compliance with the remaining requisites to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT, pursuant to Section 112 of the same Code, as amended. Actions for tax refund or credit, as in the present case, are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund. 66 The pieces of evidence presented entitling a taxpayer to an exemption are also strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. 67 Hence, an applicant for a claim for tax refund or tax credit must not only prove entitlement to the claim but also compliance with all the documentary and evidentiary requirements. 68 Unfortunately for petitioner, it has failed to prove such entitlement. aDSIHc WHEREFORE , the present Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated January 28, 2020, Docket Vol. 2, p. 510. 2. Exhibits "P-1", "P-1.1", "P-1.2", and "P-1.3", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 826 to 899. 3. Exhibit "P-2", Docket Vol. 2, p. 900. 4. Exhibits "P-34", "P-34.1", "P-34.2", "P-34.3", "P-34.4", and "P-34.5", Docket Vol, 2, pp. 1047 to 1063. 5. Par. 1, Stipulation of Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket Vol. 1, p. 457. 6. Exhibit "P-26", Docket Vol. 3, p. 1033. 7. Exhibit "P-25", Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1026 to 1031. 8. Exhibits "P-25.1" to "P-25.2", Docket Vol. 3, p. 1032. 9. Exhibit "P-27", Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1034 to 1035. 10. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 28. 11. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 71 to 78. 12. Compliance dated September 6, 2019, Docket Vol. 1, pp. 80 to 82. 13. Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated September 10, 2019, Docket Vol. 1, pp. 85 to 86; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, November 26, 2019, Docket Vol. 1, pp. 447, and 451 to 452 respectively. 14. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 87 to 89. 15. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 431 to 444. 16. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 457 to 469. 17. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 478 to 479. 18. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 510 to 520. 19. Exhibit "P-45", Docket Vol. 1, pp. 109 to 138; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 23, 2020, Docket Vol. 2, pp. 702 to 704. 20. Exhibit "P-43", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 685 to 689; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 23, 2020, Docket Vol. 2, pp. 702 to 704. 21. Oath of Commission dated February 5, 2020, Docket Vol. 2, p. 528; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, February 5, 2020, Docket Vol. 1, pp. 527, and 529 to 530, respectively. 22. Exhibit "P-40", Docket Vol. 2, pp. 541 to 576. 23. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 705 to 763. 24. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 1074 to 1076. 25. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1083 to 1084. 26. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1110 to 1112. 27. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1113 to 1121. 28. Records Verification Report dated March 18, 2021 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket Vol. 3, p. 1125. 29. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1130 to 1133. 30. Exhibit "R-6", Docket Vol. 1, pp. 96 to 101; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, March 16, 2021, Docket Vol. 2, pp. 1134 to 1136. 31. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1137 to 1140. 32. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1143 to 1145. 33. Docket Vol. 3, p. 1150. 34. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1151 to 1157. 35. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1160 to 1189. 36. Resolution dated June 22, 2022, Docket Vol. 3, p. 1192. 37. Stipulation of Issue, JSFI, Docket Vol. 1, pp. 457 to 458. 38. G.R. No. 207112, December 8, 2015. 39. G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007. 40. Exhibit "P-27", Docket, pp. 1034 to 1035. 41. Docket Vol. 2, pp. 769 to 825. 42. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. Nos. 206079-80 and 206309, January 17, 2018. 43. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; M.E. Holding Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 160193, March 3, 2008. 44. Republic of the Philippines vs. Gimenez, et al. , G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016. 45. Sabay vs. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 192150, October 1, 2014. 46. AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 5, 6, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 74, 79, 84, 86, 90, 91, 97, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 127, 128, 129, 145, 148, 149, 151, 155, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 232, 236, 237, 249, 254, 264, 269, AND 288; CREATING NEW SECTIONS 51-A, 148-A, 150-A, 150-B, 237-A, 264-A, 264-B, AND 265-A; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 35, 62, AND 89; ALL UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 8424, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 47. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 166732, April 27, 2007; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 180345, November 25, 2009; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182364, August 3, 2010. 48. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra ; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra ; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra . 49. Id . 50. Id . 51. Id . 52. Id . 53. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra ; and San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra . 54. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra ; San Roque Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra ; and AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra . 55. Edison (Bataan) Cogeneration Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et seq. , G.R. Nos. 201665 and 201668, August 30, 2017; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank , G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc. , G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014; Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005. 56. Exhibits "P-25", "P-25.1" to "P-25.2", and "P-26", Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1026 to 1033. 57. The 90th day from March 29, 2019 is June 27, 2019. 58. Exhibit "P-27", Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1034 to 1035. 59. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 28. 60. Exhibit "P-27", Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1034 to 1035. 61. SUBJECT: Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005. 62. SUBJECT: Amended Consolidated Revenue Regulations on Primary Registration, Updates, and Cancellation. 63. Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken during the hearing held on July 23, 2020, pp. 10 to 11, and 16. 64. Exhibit "P-30", Docket Vol. 3, p. 1043. 65. Exhibit "P-30", Docket Vol. 3, p. 1043. 66. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. , G.R. No. 127105, June 25, 1999. 67. Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 179961, January 31, 2011 citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008. 68. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 citing J.R.A. Philippines, Inc. v. CIR , G.R. No. 171307, August 28, 2013.