PPD Pharmaceutical Development Philippines Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 10249. May 19, 2023.] PPD PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT PHILIPPINES CORP. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA , J p : At bar is a Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioner PPD Pharmaceutical Development Philippines Corp. (petitioner/PPD) pursuant to Section 3 (a), 2 Rule 8, in relation to Section 3 (a) (2), 3 Rule 4, of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 4 (RRCTA). It seeks the refund of the alleged unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) attributable to petitioner's zero-rated sales for the third (3rd) and fourth (4th) quarters of calendar year 2017 (CY 2017) in the total amount of P13,280,089.79. 5 HTcADC PARTIES OF THE CASE Petitioner is a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) , with principal office address at 22nd Floor Net Park Building, 5th Avenue E-Square, Crescent Park West, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City. 6 It is engaged in the business of conducting and managing clinical research programs, including monitoring clinical [trials], providing project management services and conducting clinical feasibility assessments. It is also registered with the SEC as an export enterprise 7 as well as in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for VAT purposes, with Certificate of Registration (COR) No. OCN 9RC0000520175. 8 Respondent is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent/CIR) with office address at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 9 FACTS OF THE CASE For the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017, petitioner rendered services in the Philippines to PPD Global Limited (PPD Global) , a private limited company registered 10 and located at Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6GQ, United Kingdom (UK) . PPD Global is a tax resident of the UK 11 and is not registered and allegedly not doing business in the Philippines, as evidenced by the SEC-issued Certificate of Non-Registration. 12 Petitioner is a legal entity separate and distinct from PPD Global and the latter is not a director or shareholder of petitioner. 13 Petitioner's supposed aforementioned services to PPD Global include clinical trial coordination and support services, global clinical data management services, global biostatistics and programming services, clinical shared services, administrative shared services, and local contracting with PPD Global's sponsors, 14 which are among the services listed in the Services Addendum attached as Exhibit A to the Affiliate Services Agreement. 15 During the covered periods, petitioner reported zero-rated sales, purchased goods and services, and paid input VAT, as follows: Covered Period Zero-Rated Sales Purchases Input VAT 3rd Quarter P184,375,210.56 16 P59,069,878.33 17 P7,088,385.40 18 4th Quarter 289,249,339.59 19 46,381,926.99 20 5,565,831.25 21 Total P473,624,550.15 P105,451,805.32 P12,654,216.65 For its zero-rated sales, petitioner claims that the same pertain to the services rendered in PPD Global's favor for which petitioner was paid in acceptable foreign currency. 22 Petitioner neither had sales subject to 12% VAT nor exempt sales for the said periods. 23 Moreover, during the subject periods, petitioner claims that it had a total accrued input VAT on purchases of capital goods exceeding P1,000,000.00, amounting to P625,873.22. Adding the same to the input VAT from current transactions of P12,654,216.65 brings the total input VAT credits available for refund to P13,280,089.79. These input VAT credits remain unutilized and have not been applied against any output VAT liability in the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017 as well as to the subsequent quarters. 24 On 25 September 2019, or within two (2) years from the close of the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR Revenue District Office No. 44 (RDO 44) its administrative claim for refund 25 with the complete supporting documents, in compliance with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014. 26 On 30 September 2019, petitioner amended its administrative claim for refund to correct the typographical error on line 8 of the BIR Form No. 1914 27 from "07/01/2017 to 09/31/2017" to "07/01/2017 to 12/31/2017." Petitioner claims that its external consultant, KPMG, made a follow up on the status of the said application. On 06 December 2019, KPMG relayed to petitioner that RDO 44's case officer informed them of the Revenue Region's refusal to act on the claim and that the docket was returned to RDO 44 on the ground that the claim should have been filed with the VAT Credit and Audit Division (VCAD) . Also, in the email 28 petitioner received from KPMG, it appears that the case officer tried to personally endorse the docket to VCAD but the latter also refused to accept the endorsement. Since respondent did not act nor rendered a decision on petitioner's claim until 24 December 2019 (or within ninety [90] days from its submission of administrative claim for refund), petitioner deemed the same as denied due to inaction. Within thirty (30) days therefrom or on 23 January 2020, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review. 29 Petitioner further claims that it was only on 12 March 2020 that it discovered the Letter dated 21 February 2020 (Denial Letter) signed by Regional Director Glen A. Geraldino (RD Geraldino) which was, however, issued after the 90-day period to decide (and after petitioner has already filed the instant Petition for Review). On 16 March 2020, respondent filed an Answer 30 interposing the following affirmative defenses: ( 1 ) petitioner failed to show that the tax subject of the case was erroneously or illegally collected; ( 2 ) taxes paid and collected are presumed to be made in accordance with the laws and regulations hence not refundable; ( 3 ) it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that it complied with the provisions of Section 204 (C), 31 in relation to Section 229 32 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended; ( 4 ) petitioner failed to fully substantiate its claim for refund with proper documents, such as sales invoices and official receipts (ORs) ; and, ( 5 ) claims for refund are strictly construed against the claimant as they partake the nature of exemption from taxation. Respondent and petitioner filed their separate Pre-Trial Briefs on 30 June 2020 33 and 03 July 2020, 34 respectively, while respondent transmitted to this Court, on 28 September 2020, the BIR Records of the case consisting of 415 pages. 35 On 09 December 2020, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues 36 (JSFI) . Subsequently, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order 37 on 04 January 2021. Thereafter, trial ensued. On 20 January 2021, Krista V. Bambao (Bambao) was commissioned as the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) while petitioner presented its first witness, Mark Irvir S. Dormile (Dormile) . 38 Dormile's testimony, which was made through his Judicial Affidavit, 39 was offered to prove, among others, that: ( 1 ) petitioner is registered with the BIR for VAT purposes; ( 2 ) petitioner had zero-rated sales of goods and/or services to PPD Global, a limited liability corporation and a non-resident foreign corporation (NRFC) doing business outside the Philippines; ( 3 ) petitioner paid input VAT amounting to P13,280,089.79 for its purchases of goods and services [including the] accrued input VAT on purchase of capital goods exceeding P1,000,000.00; ( 4 ) petitioner used all of its purchases of goods and services for its sales of services; ( 5 ) petitioner did not utilize its input VAT for any output VAT liability for the subject period and for all succeeding quarters; ( 6 ) petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund together with the required supporting documents with RDO 44 on 25 September 2019; ( 7 ) petitioner filed an amended Application for Tax Credit/Refund (BIR Form No. 1914), together with a cover letter with RDO 44 on 30 September 2019; ( 8 ) the administrative claim for refund was filed within two (2) years from the close of the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017; ( 9 ) it was only in December 2019 when petitioner's external consultant, KPMG, checked the status of petitioner's claim for refund that it was informed of the Regional Office's desire to endorse the application to the VCAD but the latter refused to accept the endorsement; ( 10 ) KPMG even went to the VCAD to try to re-file the application but the latter also verbally refused to process the application although the 90-day period to decide was yet to lapse (at the time); ( 11 ) petitioner received the Denial Letter from Revenue Region No. 8B-South NCR on 12 March 2020; ( 12 ) petitioner filed its judicial claim for refund with this Court within 30 days from the expiration of the 90-day period for respondent to act on the same; and, ( 13 ) to identify documents relevant to petitioner's claim for refund. On 08 March 2021, petitioner presented the testimony of its second and last witness, the Court-commissioned ICPA. 40 Through her Judicial Affidavit, 41 Bamba testified, among others, that: ( 1 ) she conducted the examination and verification of petitioner's voluminous documents and checked their compliance with substantiation requirements; and, ( 2 ) she summarized her findings and observations in the Report 42 submitted to this Court on 19 February 2021. On 18 May 2021, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of [Documentary] Evidence 43 (FOE) , with respondent's Comment 44 filed on 05 May 2021, with a manifestation that he or she will no longer be presenting any evidence considering that no final report has been prepared or submitted by the revenue examiner on petitioner's claim. On 02 July 2021, the Court resolved 45 petitioner's FOE admitting all of its documentary evidence, except Exhibits "P-8", "P-9", "P-38", "P-38-1" "P-40-1", "P-56", "P-57", "P-59" to "P-61", "P-85" to "P-135", "P-137", "P-143", "P-144", "P-147", "P-157", "P-158", "P-179" to "P-188", "P-190" to "P-229", "P-230-1", "P-230-2", "P-249" and "P-249-1". 46 Likewise, in view of respondent's manifestation that he or she will no longer be presenting evidence, the parties were then given a period of 30 days within which to submit their respective memoranda. In compliance with the above, respondent filed his or her Memorandum 47 on 05 August 2021. Meanwhile, following the denial of some of its documentary evidence, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 48 (MR) on 27 October 2021, without respondent's comment. 49 Consequently, the Court resolved 50 to additionally admit petitioner's Exhibits "P-8", "P-9" and "P-40-1" 51 and allowed the tender of excluded evidence insofar as Exhibits "P-38" and "P-38-1" 52 are concerned. On 12 May 2022, petitioner filed its Memorandum, 53 prompting the Court to consider the case submitted for decision on 24 May 2022. 54 ISSUE As the parties so stipulated in their JSFI, 55 the issue to be resolved is WHETHER PETITIONER PPD PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT PHILIPPINES CORP. IS ENTITLED TO A TAX REFUND OR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE (TCC) IN THE AMOUNT OF P13,280,089.79, REPRESENTING ITS EXCESS AND/OR UNUTILIZED INPUT VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) CREDITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS ZERO-RATED SALES OF SERVICES FOR THE THIRD AND FOURTH QUARTERS OF CALENDAR YEAR (CY) 2012. ARGUMENTS In support of the above, petitioner argues that its sales to PPD Global are considered zero-rated sales pursuant to Section 108 (B) (2) 56 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Specifically, petitioner avers that the services it rendered to PPD Global such as clinical coordination and support services, global clinic data management services, global biostatistics and programming services, and clinical shared services are services other than processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods and the payments for such services were made in acceptable foreign currency. In addition, petitioner contends that the recipient of its services, PPD Global, is an NRFC doing business outside the Philippines; specifically, in the UK. Relatedly, PPD Global is a registered fiscal entity in the UK and does not derive any profit in the Philippines. CAIHTE Petitioner adds that respondent appears to have changed its theory when the latter filed his or her Memorandum claiming that PPD Global is doing business in the Philippines through petitioner, citing the case of Agilent Technologies Singapore (Pte) Ltd. v. Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corporation, et al. 57 (Agilent) . On the contrary, petitioner maintains that there is no evidence that PPD Global does business in the Philippines and this is true even if PPD Global is petitioner's sole customer. In fact, petitioner is a legal entity separate and distinct from PPD Global as the latter is neither a director nor shareholder thereof. As for the other requisites, petitioner claims that the input VAT it paid were attributable to its zero-rated sales and were not applied to any output VAT liability for the subject periods and for the subsequent quarters. Lastly, petitioner maintains that it timely filed its administrative and judicial claims for refund with the latter being based on respondent's inaction within the 90-day period provided by law. On the other hand, respondent counters that petitioner failed to prove that the recipient of its services, PPD Global, is an NRFC within the purview of Section 108 (B) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Respondent explains that its Affiliate Services Agreement with PPD Global proves that there is continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements which is considered "doing business" as defined in Section 3 (d) 58 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7042. 59 According to respondent, there is continuity of commercial dealings since the term of the Affiliate Services Agreement is for five (5) years and is automatically renewed upon expiration. RULING OF THE COURT Petitioner anchors its claim for refund on Section 110 (B), in relation to Section 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10963, 60 otherwise known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) . The said provisions read as follows: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 110. Tax Credits. xxx xxx xxx (B) Excess Output or Input Tax. If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: Provided, however , That any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 112. xxx xxx xxx 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. xxx xxx xxx In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. 61 (Deutsche Knowledge Services) , the Supreme Court set forth the requisites for the entitlement to a refund or credit of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, to wit: xxx xxx xxx Under Section 4.112-1(a) of Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 16-05, otherwise known as the Consolidated VAT Regulations of 2005, in relation to Section 112 of the Tax Code, a claimant's entitlement to a tax refund or credit of excess input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales hinges upon the following requisites: "(1) the taxpayer must be VAT-registered; (2) the taxpayer must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated; (3) the claim must be filed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales were made; and (4) the creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax." xxx xxx xxx In determining petitioner's compliance with the foregoing, the Court deems it more appropriate to preliminarily discuss whether it complied with the third requisite or the timeliness of the filing of its claim. In accordance with the above-cited Section 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by TRAIN, the administrative claim for refund of unutilized input VAT must be filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. The instant claim covers the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017. Thus, petitioner's last day for filing of its administrative claim and the actual filing thereof for the said periods fell on the following dates: Period Covered Last Day to File Administrative Claim Actual Date of Filing of Administrative Claim July to September 2017 (3rd Quarter) 30 September 2019 25 September 2019 62 October to December 2017 (4th Quarter) 31 December 2019 Clearly from the foregoing, petitioner's administrative claim was filed within the reglementary period. As to the timeliness of petitioner's judicial claim, Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides that respondent has 90 days from the date of submission on 25 September 2019 of the ORs or invoices and other documents in support of the administrative claim, or until 24 December 2019, to decide on petitioner's claim. However, respondent failed to act on petitioner's claim within the said 90-day period. Section 7 (a) (2) of RA 1125, 63 as amended by RA 9282, 64 provides: xxx xxx xxx SEC. 7. Jurisdiction . The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: xxx xxx xxx (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes , fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial [.] 65 xxx xxx xxx Furthermore, Section 11 of RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, states: xxx xxx xxx SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal . Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue , the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein . 66 xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing and considering the prevailing rule that respondent's inaction within the period fixed by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is deemed a denial, petitioner had 30 days from 24 December 2019 (or until 23 January 2020), to appeal the inaction to this Court. Evidently, petitioner's judicial claim for refund was also timely filed on 23 January 2020. 67 However, it must be noted that petitioner was later informed of the Regional Director's decision denying the claim for refund on the following grounds, to wit: ( a ) non-compliance with Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 47-2019 68 which provides that "[f]or direct exporters, regardless of the percentage of export sales to total sales and whose claims are anchored under Section 112 (A) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended, the claim shall be filed at the VAT Credit Audit Division (VCAD)"; and, ( b ) non-compliance with RMC No. 17-2018 69 which provides that "[a]ll claims by direct exporters shall be filed with and processed by the VAT Credit Audit Division (VCAD), including direct exporters under the jurisdiction of the LTS." 70 In fact, as early as in the issuance of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 13-2018, 71 the BIR has already implemented the rule that claims for input VAT refund of direct exporters shall be exclusively filed with the VCAD : xxx xxx xxx SEC. 4.112-1. Claims for Refund/Credit of Input Tax . xxx xxx xxx (c) Where to file the claim for refund/credit Claims for refunds shall be filed with the appropriate Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Office (Large Taxpayers Service (LTS), Revenue District Office (RDO)) having jurisdiction over the principal place of business of the taxpayer. Claims for input tax refund of direct exporters shall be exclusively filed with the VAT Credit Audit Division (VCAD) . 72 xxx xxx xxx From the foregoing, petitioner, being a direct exporter of services, should have filed its claim for VAT refund with VCAD and not with RDO 44. Thus, while the filing of the administrative claim was timely made, petitioner erroneously filed the same with RDO 44 when the same should have been filed with the VCAD, pursuant to RR No. 13-2018, RMC No. 17-2018 and RMC No. 47-2019 (all of which were already in effect at the time when petitioner filed its administrative claim on 25 September 2019). As such, petitioner's administrative claim is deemed as not made nor filed as a result of its filing with the wrong venue. Additionally, even without the finding that petitioner failed to properly file its administrative claim with the VCAD, a thorough examination of the records vis--vis the pertinent laws and jurisprudence would still reveal that petitioner could not successfully claim the refund of its unutilized input VAT. One of the requisites of entitlement to refund or credit of unutilized input VAT is that the taxpayer must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated. Herein, petitioner claims that during the 3rd and 4th quarters of CY 2017, it rendered clinical trial coordination and support research services in the Philippines to PPD Global, an entity that is allegedly an NRFC not doing business in the Philippines pursuant to Section 108 (B) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, 73 which states: xxx xxx xxx SEC. 108. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties . xxx xxx xxx (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate. (1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph , rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) . 74 xxx xxx xxx Petitioner's total alleged zero-rated sales for the covered period, as shown in its 3rd quarter original VAT return 75 and 4th quarter amended VAT return, 76 amounted to P473,624,550.15, broken down as follows: 77 OR No. OR Date Customer Amount 0000010 11-May-17 PPD Global Limited P72,762,287.13 0000011 13-Jun-17 PPD Global Limited 111,612,923.43 Subtotal Third Quarter CY 2017 P184,375,210.56 0000012 17-Jul-17 PPD Global Limited 86,834,818.32 0000013 09-Aug-17 PPD Global Limited 123,146,188.49 0000015 31-Jan-18 PPD Global Limited 79,268,332.78 Subtotal Fourth Quarter CY 2017 P289,249,339.59 Total P473,624,550.15 The foregoing table shows that all of petitioner's supposed zero-rated sales were made in favor of PPD Global, an alleged NRFC not doing business in the Philippines. In Deutsche Knowledge Services , 78 the Supreme Court held that for VAT zero-rating purposes under the aforementioned provision, the claimant must establish the two (2) components of its client's NRFC status, to wit: xxx xxx xxx For purposes of zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the Tax Code, the claimant must establish the two components of a client's NRFC status, viz .: (1) that their client was established under the laws of a country not the Philippines or, simply, is not a domestic corporation; and (2) that it is not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. To be sure, there must be sufficient proof of both of these components: showing not only that the clients are foreign corporations, but also are not doing business in the Philippines. xxx xxx xxx In any case, after a judicious review of the records, the Court still do not find any reason to deviate from the court a quo 's findings. To the Court's mind, the SEC Certifications of Non-Registration show that their affiliates are foreign corporations. On the other hand, the articles of association/certificates of incorporation stating that these affiliates are registered to operate in their respective home countries, outside the Philippines are prima facie evidence that their clients are not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. xxx xxx xxx As held in the said case, there must be sufficient proof of both components ( 1 ) that the client is a foreign corporation (which can be proven by the SEC Certification of Non-Registration ); and, ( 2 ) also not doing business in the Philippines (the prima facie proof of which is the articles of association/certificate of incorporation stating that the affiliate is registered to operate in their respective home countries, outside the Philippines ). In the case at bar, to prove that petitioner rendered services to an NRFC, it presented PPD Global's SEC Certification of Non-Registration, 79 Articles of Association 80 and Certificates of UK residence. 81 Respondent, however, argues that considering that the Affiliate Services Agreement 82 has a term of five (5) years and is automatically renewed upon the expiration of term, the same shows continuity of commercial dealings of PPD Global hence the latter cannot be considered as not doing business in the Philippines. While it is true that in Deutsche Knowledge Services , the submission of Articles of Association already constitutes a prima facie proof that a taxpayer's client is not doing business in the Philippines, the same remains to be prima facie , which should stand if unrebutted or uncontradicted. aScITE Prima facie evidence is evidence that is "good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient ." 83 Considering the foregoing contentions, a determination of whether PPD Global is indeed not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines is necessary. In the case of Agilent , 84 the Supreme Court reiterated the rule laid down in The Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. v. Anacleto Mangaliman, et al ., 85 with respect to the two general tests to determine whether a foreign corporation can be considered as "doing business" in the Philippines, viz. : xxx xxx xxx The challenge to Agilent's legal capacity to file suit hinges on whether or not it is doing business in the Philippines. However, there is no definitive rule on what constitutes "doing," "engaging in," or "transacting" business in the Philippines, as this Court observed in the case of Mentholatum v. Mangaliman . The Corporation Code itself is silent as to what acts constitute doing or transacting business in the Philippines. Jurisprudence has it, however, that the term "implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to or in progressive prosecution of the purpose and subject of its organization ." In Mentholatum , this Court discoursed on the two general tests to determine whether or not a foreign corporation can be considered as "doing business" in the Philippines. The first of these is the substance test, thus: The true test [for doing business], however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another. The second test is the continuity test, expressed thus: The term [doing business] implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in the progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization. xxx xxx xxx The said rulings are echoed in the case of Sitel Philippines Corporation (Formerly Clientlogic Phils., Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 86 as follows: xxx xxx xxx There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. We ruled thus in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation : x x x. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization. "In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character." xxx xxx xxx In the more recent case of Saint Wealth Ltd. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, et al. ( Saint Wealth ), 87 the Supreme Court laid down four (4) jurisprudential tests to determine whether a foreign corporation is "doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business in the Philippines, to wit: xxx xxx xxx Substance Test the true test in determining whether a foreign corporation is transacting business "seems to be whether [it] is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another." As noted by Justice Dimaampao, the Substance Test implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements , and contemplates, to the extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose of its organization . Contract Test transactions entered into by a foreign corporation which constitute an isolated transaction and are not a series of commercial dealings which signify an intent on the part of such corporation to do business in the Philippines, does not fall under the category of "doing business." Thus, as stressed by Justice Dimaampao, isolated transactions by a foreign corporation do not constitute engaging in business in the Philippines. Intention Test what is determinative of "doing business" is not really the number or the quantity of the transactions, but the intention of the entity to continue the body of its business in the country. The number and quantity are merely evidence of such intention . The phrase "isolated transaction" has a definite and fixed meaning, i.e. , a transaction or series of transactions set apart from the common business of a foreign enterprise in the sense that no intention to engage in a progressive pursuit of the purpose and object of the business organization. As such, Justice Dimaampao noted in his Reflections that under the Intention Test , the question of whether a foreign corporation is "doing business" does not necessarily depend upon the frequency of its transactions, but more upon the nature and character of the transactions . Actual Performance Test an essential condition to be considered as "doing business" in the Philippines is the actual performance of specific commercial acts within the territory of the Philippines , because, as aptly pointed out by Justice Dimaampao in his Reflections , the Philippines has no jurisdiction over commercial acts performed in foreign territories. xxx xxx xxx In the present case, it is undisputed that PPD Global, as shown in the Affiliate Services Agreement, 88 is engaged in the business of managing clinical research programs and providing clinical development and other related services for clients. On the other hand, petitioner is primarily engaged in the similar business of "conduct[ing] contract research, including monitoring clinical trials, providing project management services and conducting clinical feasibility assessments," as evinced in its Articles of Incorporation 89 (AOI) . Moreover, in the said Affiliate Services Agreement, petitioner is tasked to provide services related to clinical research and development to sponsors or clients of PPD Global and the latter would compensate petitioner at cost plus mark-up, to wit: xxx xxx xxx 1. SERVICES . 1.1 Scope of Services . Affiliate shall provide those certain services (" Services ") related to a Sponsor clinical trial or project (" Project ") identified by PPDG , described in the Services Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A , and further described in the services agreement between any of the Hubs and Sponsor (" Sponsor Agreement "). Affiliate shall perform the Services in compliance with (i) the protocol for the Project (" Protocol "); (ii) the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (iii) the terms and conditions of the relevant Sponsor Agreement , the applicable terms of which shall be incorporated by reference herein; (iv) instructions provided by PPDG or Sponsor ; and (v) all applicable laws, rules and regulations. To the extent any terms contained herein conflict with terms contained in the Sponsor Agreement, the terms of the Sponsor Agreement shall govern and control. xxx xxx xxx Exhibit A Services Addendum Affiliate may provide, from time to time, the following Services in addition to other Services as requested by PPDG: Clinical Trial Co-ordination and Support Services Clinical trial co-ordination and support services for clinical trials being conducted locally comprising the following key activities: 90 xxx xxx xxx Applying the jurisprudential tests laid down in Saint Wealth , the Court is constrained to hold that PPD Global is doing business in the Philippines through petitioner. Firstly, the Substance Test looks at the nature and scope of the activities being conducted by the foreign corporation in the Philippines, that is, whether the same is normally incident to and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose of its organization. DETACa As aforementioned, PPD Global is a clinical research organization engaged in the business of managing clinical research programs and providing clinical development and other related services for clients while petitioner's primary purpose is to conduct contract research, including clinical trials , providing management services and conducting clinical feasibility assessment and is actually tasked, through the Affiliate Services Agreement, to provide certain services (described in the Services Addendum) as may be requested by PPD Global, which are related to the Sponsor clinical trial or project identified also by PPD Global. From the foregoing, it is evident that petitioner is performing functions that are integral to PPD Global's business purpose. Secondly, the Contract Test examines whether a series of commercial dealings reflects an intention on the part of a foreign corporation to engage in business in the Philippines. In the instant case, the agreement between PPD Global and petitioner stipulates a five-year term with automatic renewal, during which petitioner is to perform significant or core transactions of PPD Global in the Philippines under the name of PPD Global. This is an indicium of intent on the part of PPD Global to engage in business in the Philippines by having continuing commercial dealings and arrangements, rather than an isolated transaction. Thirdly, the Intention Test looks at nature and character of the transaction or whether the activities performed are in furtherance of the foreign corporation's business purpose and objectives (as opposed to isolated transactions or those which are "apart from the common business of a foreign enterprise"), and not on the frequency of the transaction. In this case, it is evident that petitioner's services are directly related to PPD Global's business purpose and objectives of conducting clinical research programs and delivering clinical development services to its clients. This demonstrates that the petitioner is not just providing ancillary or administrative support services but is actively engaged in conducting PPD Global's business activities in the country. Finally, the Actual Performance Test looks at whether the services were performed within the country in question. In this case, petitioner's witness, Dormile, testified that petitioner's services to PPDG's clients or sponsors were all rendered in the Philippines, to wit: xxx xxx xxx 44.Q: What was PPD's basis for classifying said sales for the third and fourth quarters of CY 2017 as subject to zero-rated VAT? A: PPD's sales for the third and fourth quarters of CY 2017 were zero-rated because they consisted of sale of services rendered in the Philippines in favor of PPD Global Limited ("PPD Global") , an entity that is not engaged in business in the Philippines pursuant to a contract for services entered into between PPD and PPD Global and which was paid for in foreign currency. xxx xxx xxx 47.Q: What were these services rendered by PPD to PPD Global? A: Clinical trial coordination and support services, global clinical data management services. Global biostatistics and programming services, clinical shared services, administrative shared services, and local contracting with sponsors. 91 xxx xxx xxx Furthermore, it was elucidated in Columbia Pictures, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 92 that a foreign corporation is deemed doing business when it has entered the State by its agent and there engaged in carrying on and transacting through them some substantial part of its ordinary or customary business, especially so that the activities conducted by its agent are under the direction and control of the foreign corporation, viz. : xxx xxx xxx As a general proposition upon which many authorities agree in principle, subject to such modifications as may be necessary in view of the particular issue or of the terms of the statute involved, it is recognized that a foreign corporation is "doing," "transacting," "engaging in," or "carrying on" business in the State when, and ordinarily only when, it has entered the State by its agents and is there engaged in carrying on and transacting through them some substantial part of its ordinary or customary business, usually continuous in the sense that it may be distinguished from merely casual, sporadic, or occasional transactions and isolated acts . xxx xxx xxx As a general rule, a foreign corporation will not be regarded as doing business in the State simply because it enters into contracts with residents of the State, where such contracts are consummated outside the State. In fact, a view is taken that a foreign corporation is not doing business in the State merely because sales of its product are made there or other business furthering its interests is transacted there by an alleged agent, whether a corporation or a natural person, where such activities are not under the direction and control of the foreign corporation but are engaged in by the alleged agent as an independent business . xxx xxx xxx As mentioned above, the Affiliate Services Agreement between petitioner and PPD Global states that the former shall provide certain services which should comply with, among others, the protocol for the Project, the terms and conditions of the relevant Sponsor Agreement, and the instructions provided by PPD Global or Sponsor all of which are under the direction and/or control by PPD Global and/or its clients (referred to as Sponsor). In addition, noteworthy is the fact that petitioner's services rendered to PPD Global's clients or sponsors were receipted under the name of PPD Global, 93 instead of the clients or sponsors, to whom the services were rendered. This implies that petitioner is merely PPD Global's agent as the clients or sponsors make direct payments to PPD Global for petitioner's services, and subsequently, PPD Global compensates petitioner at a cost-plus mark-up rate. In sum, the above circumstances reveal that PPD Global, which is the sole recipient of petitioner's services that are allegedly subject to 0% VAT under Section 108 (B) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is doing business in the Philippines. Simply stated, since petitioner's sole customer, PPD Global, is deemed engaged or doing business in the Philippines, its services to PPD Global do not qualify for VAT zero-rating. To rule otherwise would permit foreign corporations to reap economic benefits from the services rendered within the country, while enjoying the protections afforded by the State, without the need to register and/or pay taxes herein. In conclusion, the Court reiterates that actions for tax refund or credit, as in the instant case, are in the nature of a claim for exemption and the pieces of evidence presented to entitle a taxpayer to an exemption is strictissimi scrutinized and must be duly proven. The burden is on the taxpayer-claimant to show that it has strictly complied with the conditions for the grant of the tax refund or credit. 94 For failure to substantiate the alleged zero-rated sales, petitioner cannot claim for refund the unutilized input VAT attributable thereto. Accordingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss petitioner's compliance with the rest of the requisites for its entitlement to refund or credit under Section 112 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. HEITAD WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing, the Petition for Review of petitioner PPD Pharmaceutical Development Philippines Corp.'s filed on 23 January 2020 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice Lanee S. Cui-David, J. , concurs . Footnotes 1. Filed on 23 January 2020, Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 7-26. 2. SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. 3. SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Division. The Court in Division shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original over or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: xxx xxx xxx (2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law provides a specific period for action[.] . . . 4. A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA dated 22 November 2005. 5. Summary of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated 04 January 2021, Division Docket, Volume II, p. 668. 6. Paragraph (par.) 1.1, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue (JSFI), id. , p. 643. See also Exhibit "P-1", Formal Offer of Evidence (FOE) Folder. 7. Par. 1.3, id. , p. 644. See also Exhibit "P-2", FOE Folder. 8. Par. 1.4, id. See also Exhibit "P-3", FOE Folder. 9. Par. 1.2, id. , p. 643. 10. See Articles of Association of PPD Global Limited, Exhibit "P-13", FOE Folder. 11. See Exhibits "P-14" to "P-19", id. 12. See Exhibit "P-20", id. 13. See Question and Answer Q&A) No. 46, Judicial Affidavit of Mark Irvir S. Dormile, Division Docket, Volume II, p. 694; See also Exhibit "P-1", FOE Folder. 14. Q&A No. 47, Judicial Affidavit of Mark Irvir Dormile, Division Docket, Volume II, p. 694. 15. See Exhibit "P-11", FOE Folder. 16. Line 17, Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return, Exhibit "P-8", id. 17. Line 21P, id. 18. Sum of Lines 21D, 21F and 21J, id. 19. Line 17, Amended Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return, Exhibit "P-9", id. 20. Line 21P, id. 21. Sum of Lines 21B, 21F and 21J, id. 22. See Exhibits "P-21" to "P-25", id. 23. See Lines 15A and 18, Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return and Amended Quarterly Value-Added Tax Return, Exhibits "P-8" and "P-9", id. , respectively. 24. Q&A Nos. 84-86, Judicial Affidavit of Mark Irvir Dormile, Division Docket, Volume II, pp. 703-704; Q&A Nos. 30-31, Judicial Affidavit of Krista V. Bambao, id. , Volume III, p. 939. 25. BIR Form No. 1914, Application for Tax Credits/Refunds filed on 25 September 2019. Exhibit "P-4", FOE Folder. 26. Clarifying Issues Relative to the Application for Value-Added Tax (VAT) Refund/Credit under Section 112 of the Tax Code, as amended. 27. BIR Form No. 1914, Application for Tax Credits/Refunds, Exhibit "P-5", FOE Folder. 28. Exhibit "P-37", FOE Folder. 29. Supra at note 1. 30. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 94-96. 31. SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes . The Commissioner may xxx xxx xxx (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority . . . xxx xxx xxx 32. SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected . No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however , That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid. 33. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 100-103. 34. Id. , pp. 354-370. 35. See Compliance filed on 28 September 2020 and Notice of Minute Resolution dated 29 September 2020, id. , Volume II, pp. 378-379, respectively. 36. Id. , pp. 643-649. 37. Id. , pp. 668-673. 38. See Order dated 20 January 2021, id. , p. 675. 39. Exhibits "P-39" and "P-39-1", id. , pp. 389-416. See also the Compliance on the Filing of the Corrected/Amended Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Mark Irvir S. Dormile filed on 02 February 2021, id. , pp. 680-710. 40. See Order dated 08 March 2021, id. , Volume III, p. 959. 41. Exhibits "P-249" and "P-249-1", id. , pp. 920-941. 42. Exhibits "P-40" and "P-40-1", ICPA Report. 43. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 961-982. 44. Id. , pp. 983-985. 45. See Resolution dated 02 July 2021, id. , pp. 990-993. 46. Exhibit Description "P-8" Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Form No. 2550Q) for the third quarter of CY 2017, which was filed on 25 October 2017. "P-9" Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Form No. 2550Q) for the fourth quarter of CY 2017, which was filed on 26 April 2018. "P-38" Judicial Affidavit of Krista V. Bambao dated 10 December 2020, attached to the Motion for Commissioning of an ICPA. "P-38-1" Signature of Krista V. Bambao on her Judicial Affidavit. "P-40-1" Signature of Ms. Krista V. Bambao on the ICPA Report filed on 19 February 2021. "P-56", "P-57", "P-59" to "P-61", "P-85" to "P-135", "P-137", "P-143", "P-144", "P-147", "P-157", "P-158", "P-179" to "P-188" and "P-190" to "P-229" Various invoices or official receipts. "P-230-1" Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation of N-Park BGC Properties, Inc. (Formerly: 20-34 Property Holdings, Inc.). "P-230-2" Certificate of Registration of N-Park BGC Properties, Inc. "P-249" Transmittal letter received by this Honorable Court on 19 February 2021, providing for the submission of the ICPA Report and the USB containing the soft copies forming part of the ICPA Report to the Honorable Court. "P-249-1" Transmittal letter received by the BIR on 19 February 2021, providing for the submission of the ICPA Report and the USB containing the soft copies forming part of the ICPA Report to the BIR. 47. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 994-999. 48. Id. , pp. 1003-1010. 49. Per Records Verification dated 04 March 2022, id. , p. 1023. 50. See Resolution dated 25 March 2022, id. , pp. 1025-1027. 51. Exhibit Description "P-8" Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Form No. 2550Q) for the third quarter of CY 2017, which was filed on 25 October 2017. "P-9" Quarterly VAT Return (BIR Form No. 2550Q) for the fourth quarter of CY 2017, which was filed on 26 April 2018. "P-40-1" Signature of Ms. Krista V. Bambao on the ICPA Report filed on 19 February 2021. 52. Exhibit Description "P-38" Judicial Affidavit of Krista V. Bambao dated 10 December 2020, attached to the Motion for Commissioning of an ICPA. "P-38-1" Signature of Krista V. Bambao on her Judicial Affidavit. 53. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1028-1047. 54. See Resolution dated 24 May 2022, id. , p. 1049. 55. Id. , Volume II, p. 644. 56. SEC. 108. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties . xxx xxx xxx (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate . The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT-registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate: (1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a non-resident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangkok Sentra ng Filipinas (BSP); xxx xxx xxx 57. G.R. No. 154618, 14 April 2004. 58. SEC. 3. Definitions . As used in this Act: xxx xxx xxx d) The phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods totalling one hundred eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization: Provided, however , That the phrase "doing business" shall not be deemed to include mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign entity in domestic corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the exercise of rights as such investor; nor having a nominee director or officer to represent its interests in such corporation; nor appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in its own name and for its own account[.] xxx xxx xxx 59. AN ACT TO PROMOTE FOREIGN INVESTMENTS, PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURES FOR REGISTERING ENTERPRISES DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 60. 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 NO. 8424, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 61. G.R. No. 234445, 15 July 2020; Citations omitted. 62. Exhibit "P-4", BIR Records, p. 367. See also amended Application for Tax Credits/Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914), Exhibit "P-5", BIR Records, p. 370. 63. AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. 64. AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 65. Emphasis supplied. 66. Emphasis supplied. 67. Supra at note 1. 68. Revised Guidelines and Mandatory Requirements for the Processing and Grant of Value-Added Tax (VAT) Refund Claims within the 90-day Period Pursuant to Section 112 of the Tax Code of 1997, as Amended. 69. Amending Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 89-2017 and Certain Provisions of RMC No. 54-2014 Regarding the Processing of Claims for Issuance of Tax Refund/Tax Credit Certificate (TCC) in Relation to Amendments Made in the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as Amended by Republic Act No. 10963, Known as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN). 70. ICPA Report, p. 3. 71. Regulations Implementing the Value-Added Tax Provisions under the Republic Act (RA) No. 10963, or the "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN)," Further Amending Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005 (Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005), as Amended. 72. Emphasis and underscoring in the original text and supplied. 73. Before amendments introduced by TRAIN. 74. Emphasis supplied. 75. Exhibit "P-8", FOE Folder. 76. Exhibit "P-9", id. 77. ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-40", p. 6. 78. Supra at note 61; Citations omitted. 79. Exhibit "P-20", FOE Folder. 80. Exhibit "P-13", id. 81. Exhibits "P-14" to "P-19", id. 82. Supra at note 15. 83. Bicol Medical Center, et al. v. Noe B. Botor, et al., G.R. No. 214073, 04 October 2017 citing Tomas P. Tan v. Jose G. Hosana , G.R. No. 190846, 03 February 2016. 84. Supra at note 57, Citations omitted, emphasis supplied and underscoring in the original text. 85. G.R. No. L-47701, 27 June 1941. 86. G.R. No. 201326, 08 February 2017; Emphasis in the original text. 87. G.R. No. 252965, 07 December 2021; Citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original text and supplied. 88. Supra at note 15. 89. Exhibit "P-1", FOE Folder. 90. Emphasis and underscoring in the original text and italics supplied. 91. Emphasis in the original text, italics and underscoring supplied. 92. G.R. No. 110318, 28 August 1996; Citations omitted and emphasis supplied. 93. Exhibits "P-43" to "P-48", USB. 94. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 222428, 19 February 2018, citing Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 159490, 18 February 2008.