Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8123. October 24, 2023.] DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE, LTD. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , J p : The Case The instant case involves a claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate ("TCC") of petitioner's alleged excess and unutilized input value-added tax ("VAT") arising from its zero-rated sales during the 2nd quarter of the calendar year ("CY") 2008 in the total amount of Twenty Nine Million Seven Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and 25/100 Pesos (Php29,792,984.25). 1 HTcADC The Parties Petitioner is the Philippine branch of a multinational company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Singapore. It has a license to do business as a regional operating headquarters ("ROHQ") in the Philippines to engage in general administration and planning; business planning and coordination; sourcing/procurement of raw materials and components; corporate finance advisory services; marketing control and sales promotion; training and personnel management; logistics services; research and development services and product development; technical support and maintenance; and data processing and communication and business development. 2 It is registered as a VAT taxpayer with the BIR under Certificate of Registration No. OCN 9RC0000270209 and was assigned Tax Identification Number ("TIN") 238-763-115-000. 3 Meanwhile, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") empowered to perform the duties of the said office, including, among others, the power to decide, approve, and grant claims for refund or tax credit of erroneously paid or overpaid taxes, as provided by law, particularly the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended ("NIRC") . He holds office at the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 4 The Facts Petitioner filed its VAT return for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 on 18 July 2008. 5 In said VAT return, petitioner claimed that it incurred the following input VAT and output VAT during the 2nd Quarter of CY 2008: Purchases of Capital Goods Not Exceeding Php1,000,000.00 Php3,032.14 Purchases of Capital Goods Exceeding Php1,000,000.00 954,979.75 Domestic Purchases of Goods Other Than Capital Goods 1,199,509.16 Domestic Purchases of Services 23,832,557.89 Services Rendered by Non-residents 3,802,905.31 Total Input VAT incurred during the 2nd Quarter of CY 2008 29,792,984.25 Less: Output VAT 389,769.97 Excess Input VAT for the 2nd Quarter of CY 2008 Php29,403,214.28 On 24 June 2010, petitioner filed its administrative claim for VAT refund before BIR-Revenue District Office No. 44. 6 However, due to respondent's inaction on petitioner's administrative claim, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review ("Petition") before this Court. 7 On 4 August 2010, respondent filed his Answer. 8 Thereafter, this Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction as the same was prematurely filed. 9 The Court En Banc in a Decision, dated 13 December 2012, 10 similarly dismissed the Petition for Review filed by petitioners thereto and also ruled that the instant Petition was prematurely filed. However, after petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated December 13, 2012) 11 and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for Leave), 12 the Court En Banc reversed itself and ruled that petitioner is deemed to have filed its judicial claim on time. 13 Respondent appealed this ruling by the Court En Banc before the Supreme Court, 14 which, in a Resolution, dated 26 September 2018, ruled that petitioner's judicial claim was timely filed and affirmed the ruling of the Court En Banc . 15 The latter then remanded the case before this Court in a Resolution, dated 5 July 2019. 16 On 3 September 2019, the Court issued a Resolution setting the pre-trial conference on 21 November 2019. 17 Petitioner, on 18 November 2019, filed its Pre-Trial Brief. 18 It then submitted the Judicial Affidavit of its witness, Mr. Felix B. Angue, Jr, 19 while respondent filed his Pre-Trial Brief, both on 19 November 2019. 20 The pre-trial conference ensued on 21 November 2019. 21 Then, on 13 December 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues. 22 On 27 December 2019, petitioner moved to commission Mr. Glenn Ian D. Villanueva as the Independent Certified Public Accountant ("ICPA") for the instant case. 23 A Pre-Trial Order was issued by this Court on 9 January 2020 to govern the proceedings of the instant case. 24 On 9 January 2020, petitioner submitted the Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Villanueva in relation to his commissioning as ICPA. 25 During the Hearing, dated 16 January 2020, Mr. Villanueva was commissioned by this Court as ICPA for the present case and was ordered to submit an ICPA Report summarizing his audit findings, 26 which he submitted on 9 March 2020. 27 Petitioner then presented its witness, Mr. Angue, for cross-examination on 12 March 2020. 28 Afterwards, petitioner presented Mr. Villanueva, whose Judicial Affidavit it submitted on 17 September 2020, 29 on 22 September 2020. 30 During the same hearing, respondent manifested that he would no longer present any evidence for the case. On 4 November 2021 petitioner submitted another Judicial Affidavit for Mr. Angue, seeking to clarify certain disallowances made by the ICPA in the ICPA Report. 31 According to Mr. Angue, the disallowances made by the ICPA of certain zero-rated sales made to "Deutsche Bank AG Sydney" since the said sales were not supported with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Certificate of Non-Registration should not be considered by the Court, considering that payments made by said payee were actually made by "Deutsche Group Services Pty. Ltd. Australia Company," which was the real client of petitioner and to which petitioner actually rendered services. Mr. Angue further testified that it is a common practice for "Australian DB entities" to make all payments under the name "Deutsche Bank AG Sydney" since the remittance actually came from an account under its name even though service was made to another entity. Moreover, Mr. Angue identified a negative certification from the SEC attesting that "Deutsche Bank AG Sydney" is not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. 32 Mr. Angue was then placed once more in the witness stand during the hearing conducted on 8 November 2021. 33 On 25 November 2021 and on 14 March 2022, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence ("FOE") and Amended FOE, respectively, 34 to which respondent did not interpose any objections. 35 Thereafter, all of petitioner's Exhibits were admitted by this Court. 36 Respondent filed his Memorandum on 23 May 2022. 37 Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 9 September 2022. 38 Thus, in a Resolution, dated 25 October 2022, the instant case was submitted for Decision. 39 Hence, this Decision. The Issue 40 The issue submitted for this Court's resolution is: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the claim for refund of or issuance of TCC for its alleged excess and unutilized input VAT in the amount of Twenty Nine Million Seven Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and 25/100 Pesos (Php29,792,984.25). Arguments of the Parties Petitioner's Arguments 41 Petitioner avers that it is entitled to a refund of excess and unutilized input VAT. Petitioner posits the following arguments: Petitioner's claim for refund of its accumulated (excess) input VAT finds legal support in Section 108 (B) (2) in relation to Sections 110 (B) and 112 (A) of the NIRC; Based on the aforesaid provisions of the NIRC , in order to be entitled to a refund or issuance of TCC of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be complied with: a) there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; b) input taxes were incurred or paid; c) such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; d) the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters; e) the claim for refund was filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period; and f) in case of zero-rated sales under Sections 108 (B) (1) and (2) of the NIRC , the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ("BSP") rules and regulations. Petitioner is a VAT-registered entity; Petitioner had zero-rated export sales of services during the 2nd quarter of CY 2008; Petitioner provided services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods to its non-resident foreign affiliates; Payment for petitioner's services were made in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations; The recipients of petitioner's services are doing business outside the Philippines; Petitioner's input VAT in the amount of Twenty Nine Million Seven Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four and 25/100 Pesos (Php29,792,984.25) for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 is properly substantiated and attributable to petitioner's zero-rated sales; Petitioner's excess and unutilized input VAT for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 remains unutilized and unapplied against output VAT; and Petitioner's claim for refund was filed within the two (2)-year prescriptive period. Respondent's Arguments 42 In refutation, respondent alleges that the instant Petition must be dismissed considering that petitioner failed to prove that it filed an administrative claim for refund before the BIR prior to instituting the instant judicial claim. Petitioner's Exhibit "P-4" and "P-4.1" should not be given credence as these documents are only photocopies. Claims for refund of erroneously/illegally collected taxes must be brought in accordance with Section 229 of the NIRC . Before a judicial claim for refund can be filed before this Court, the BIR must first be given a chance and opportunity to ascertain the veracity and validity of the claim. Furthermore, the NIRC only allows the refund of input VAT which are creditable and directly attributable. No attributability was established between the input tax on the purchases vis--vis the zero-rated sales of petitioner. A claim for refund must be established by petitioner through the required quantum of evidence and not by mere assumption. Tax refunds are in the nature of a tax exemption which must be construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer. To stress, a taxpayer must present convincing evidence to substantiate a claim for refund. The Ruling of the Court The instant Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Requisites for claiming unutilized input VAT attributable to zero- rated sales. The provisions that govern the present claim for refund of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales are Section 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC , which read: " 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. (B) . . . (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit 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 ninety (90) days period shall be punishable under Section 269 of this Code." (Emphasis, Ours.) Based on the foregoing provisions, jurisprudence has laid down the following requisites that must be complied with by the taxpayer-applicant to successfully obtain a tax refund/credit: As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims: 1. the refund claim is filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made; 43 2. the judicial claim is filed with this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of an adverse decision ( i.e. , partial or full denial of the administrative claim), 44 or upon the lapse of the period given to the CIR to act on an administrative claim ( i.e. , one hundred twenty (120) days from the filing of such claim) wherein the CIR failed to act on the same within such period (in which case, the claim for refund is deemed denied by the CIR), whichever comes first; 45 With reference to the taxpayer's registration with the BIR: 3. the taxpayer is a VAT-registered person; 46 In relation to the taxpayer's output VAT: 4. the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 47 5. for zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(1) and (2), 106(B), and 108(B)(1) and (2) of the NIRC , the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ("BSP") rules and regulations; 48 As regards the taxpayer's input VAT being refunded: 6. the input taxes are not transitional input taxes; 49 7. the input taxes are due or paid; 50 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; 51 and 9. the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters. 52 At this juncture, it must be emphasized that cases filed before the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") are litigated de novo . 53 Parties are thus expected to litigate and prove every minute aspect of their case anew by presenting, formally offering, and submitting to the CTA all evidence required for the successful prosecution of its claim. 54 Consequently, petitioner must competently establish its claim for refund or tax credit following the foregoing requisites. Petitioner's administrative and judicial claims for refund were timely filed. Pursuant to Sections 112 (A) and (C) of the NIRC , the refund of unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales must be administratively filed with the BIR within two (2) years counted from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made. Meanwhile, the judicial claim for refund must be filed in Court within 30 days from either: (1) receipt of respondent's decision but such decision must be rendered within the 120-day period to resolve; or (2) after the expiration of the 120-day period, in which case there is a deemed denial of the claim. Applying the foregoing, the table below summarizes the relevant dates pertaining to the filing of the administrative and judicial claims for refund: Period of claim Close of the taxable quarter Last day for filing of the administrative claim Date of filing of the administrative claim Last day of the CIR to act on the administrative claim (120 days) Last day for filing of the judicial claim (30 days) Date of filing of judicial claim 2nd Quarter of CY 2008 30 June 2008 30 June 2010 24 June 2010 55 22 October 2010 21 November 2010 (a Sunday) 29 June 2010 56 The present case covers the 2nd quarter of CY 2008. Counting two (2) years from close of the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 on 30 June 2008, petitioner had until 30 June 2008 to file its administrative claim for refund. Thus, the administrative claim filed on 24 June 2010 was timely made. Respondent insists that since petitioner failed to offer in evidence the original copy or the certified true copy of the administrative claim, and only a photocopy of the same, petitioner was allegedly not able to prove its filing of a prior administrative claim for refund. This is terribly misplaced. Section 4 (c), Rule 130 of the Amended Rules on Evidence categorically declares that a "duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original." In the case at bar, neither has respondent raised a genuine issue as to the authenticity of the original nor is it unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. The fact that simply needs to be proven in the instant case is that petitioner filed an administrative claim within two (2) years counted from the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales were made, and this fact was already admitted by respondent in his previous submissions before this Court. Thus, it would iniquitous to allow respondent to claim a position different from that which he has already admitted to take advantage of the fact that petitioner could not produce the original copy of the administrative claim it filed before the BIR, another original copy of which is surely contained in the BIR Records, which respondents did not elevate before this Court. CAIHTE Accordingly, this Court rules that petitioner timely filed its administrative claim. Meanwhile, as to the timeliness of the judicial claim, counting 120 days from the filing of the administrative claim on 24 June 2010, respondent had until 22 October 2010 to resolve the claim. Respondent failed to act on petitioner's administrative claim for refund, however. Counting 30 days from the lapse of the 120-day period, petitioner had until 21 November 2010 to file a judicial claim. Considering that 21 November 2010 was a Sunday, the deadline to file the judicial claim is moved to the next working day, which is 22 November 2010. The present Petition was prematurely filed on 29 June 2010, before the expiration of the 120-day period given to the CIR to decide on VAT refund claims. Nonetheless, after this issue was exhaustively tackled by the parties before this Court, the Court En Banc and the Supreme Court, the High Court found that the instant judicial claim was timely filed by petitioner. 57 As observed by the Supreme Court, when the present administrative claim and judicial claims for VAT refund were filed by petitioner, the applicable rule in effect was that provided in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 , 58 which allowed the filing of a judicial claim in the CTA even prior to the lapse of the 120-day period. It was only when the present judicial claim was filed before this Court that Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia ("Aichi Case") 59 was promulgated declaring that the periods prescribed under Section 112 (D) of the NIRC were mandatory and jurisdictional. Thus, the said pronouncements under the Aichi Case must only be applied prospectively. Given the foregoing, petitioner complied with the first and second requirements that the administrative and judicial claims should be timely filed. Petitioner is a VAT-registered taxpayer. It is undisputed that petitioner is duly registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer under Certificate of Registration No. OCN 9RC0000270209 with TIN 238-763-115-000. 60 Hence, petitioner complied with the third requisite that the claimant must be a VAT-registered taxpayer. Petitioner is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. Petitioner claims that it has engaged in zero-rated sales of services, other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods, to non-resident foreign corporations ("NRFCs") engaged in business outside of the Philippines. Zero-rated sales of services, other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods, to NRFCs is defined under Section 108 (B) (2) of the NIRC : "(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": xxx xxx xxx (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) ;" In applying the above provision, Section 4.108-5 (b) (2) of Revenue Regulations No. ("RR") 16-05, as amended , provides: "(b) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) VAT Rate. The following services performed in the Philippines by a VAT-registered person shall be subject to zero percent (0%) VAT rate: xxx xxx xxx (2) Services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking 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 BSP ;" For a sale of service to qualify for VAT zero-rating under these provisions, it must be proven that: a) the services rendered were other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods; b) the services were rendered to NRFCs doing business outside the Philippines; and c) the services were paid for in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations. 61 Petitioner rendered services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods to NRFCs doing business outside of the Philippines. To verify whether petitioner is authorized to provide services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods, petitioner's License to Do Business in the Philippines as issued by the SEC was perused by this Court. Our finding is that petitioner is a Philippine branch of a multinational company organized and existing under of the laws of Singapore. It is also licensed to carry out its business as an ROHQ in the Philippines by the SEC on 25 April 2005 with SEC Registration No. FS200506950. Petitioner is primarily engaged in general administration and planning, business planning and coordination, sourcing, and procurement of raw materials and components, corporate finance advisory services, marketing control and sales promotion, training and personnel management, logistic services, research and development services and product development, technical support and maintenance, data processing and communication, and business development. 62 Thus, petitioner is only allowed to render services as provided which does not partake the form of processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods. Moreover, to determine if petitioner indeed rendered services other than processing, manufacturing, or repacking of goods, and if such services were actually rendered services to NRFCs, this Court reviewed the various contracts entered into by petitioner with its clients ( i.e. , IntraGroup Service Agreements). 63 Following such examination, this Court duly found that petitioner is actually providing services other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods to NRFCs, except Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch, which is a domestic corporation. Further, petitioner's services are to be paid in Euros. Petitioner also presented the various foreign registration documents, 64 and SEC negative certifications 65 of its various clients. These documents all prove that petitioner's clients are NRFCs who are not doing business in the Philippines but only outside of it. Petitioner was paid in foreign currency for the services it rendered to its NRFC clients. An examination of the Certificate of Inward Remittance provided by petitioner 66 would reveal that petitioner was paid in acceptable foreign currency ( i.e. , Euros) accounted for using BSP rules and regulations for the services it rendered to its NRFC clients. Accordingly, petitioner was engaged in zero-rated sales of services. The fourth requisite for a successful VAT refund claim is thus complied with by petitioner. Petitioner properly substantiated its zero-rated sales up to the amount of Php365,670,700.38. In determining if these zero-rated sales of services were properly substantiated by petitioner, and guided by the ICPA Report, 67 this Court found that the amount received from petitioner's clients, which are denominated in Euros, were automatically translated by petitioner's accounting system using the Euro to Philippine peso spot rate on the date the payment was received. Thus, this Court initially compared the zero-rated sales per VAT Return 68 and the Schedule of zero-rated sales. 69 The result of such comparison would reveal no discrepancy, as follows: 70 Particulars Reference Amount Zero-rated sales per 2nd quarter VAT return Exhibit P-3 P405,589,744.27 Less : Gross receipts from zero-rated sales per schedule Exhibit P-13 405,589,744.27 Difference P- This shows that the VAT Return for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 accurately reflects the zero-rated sales of services during such period since the translated amount in Peso of sales denominated in Euros tallies with the total sales per VAT Return. Following the ICPA's observation 71 that petitioner issues Euro-denominated Official Receipts ("ORs") 72 to its customers based on the date of remittance by the customers, this Court also verified whether petitioner's zero-rated sales are supported with ORs that are dated within the 2nd quarter of 2008 and that contain all information required under Sections 113 and 237 of the NIRC and if the amount of sale is properly indicated in the VAT zero-rated section of the OR ( i.e. , invoicing requirements). The result of such examination is as follows: 73 Particulars Reference Amount Zero-rated sales per VAT return Exhibit P-3 Php405,589,744.27 Less : Zero-rated sales supported with ORs Annex A of ICPA Report 405,589,744.27 Sales not supported with ORs Php- This shows that petitioner's zero-rated sales as reflected in the VAT returns are properly supported with VAT zero-rated ORs. The Court then proceeded to trace the zero-rated sales to petitioner's bank certificate of inward remittance 74 to verify whether the amount of zero-rated sales were paid for in acceptable foreign currency ( i.e. , Euro) and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP. This resulted in the following: 75 Particulars Reference Amount Gross receipts per bank certificate of inward remittances Exhibit P-15 5,792,149.32 Less : Gross receipts from zero-rated sales per official receipts Annex A of ICPA Report 5,733,349.32 Difference 58,800.00 The difference noted 76 amounting to 58,800 Euros pertains to petitioner's VATable sales to Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft Filiale Manila supported with OR No. 192. 77 With this, petitioner was able to prove that its zero-rated sales of services were properly paid using acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP. This likewise shows compliance by petitioner with the fifth requisite necessary for the grant of a VAT refund claim. The next step is to determine if all of petitioner's customers/clients during the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 are indeed NRFCs doing business outside of the Philippines. As guided by the ICPA Report, 78 this Court then proceeded to examine all of the SEC Certificates of Non-Registration 79 and foreign registration documents 80 submitted by petitioner, which allegedly pertained to all of its NRFC customers/clients during the 2nd quarter of CY 2008. Out of the Php405,589,744.27 VAT zero-rated sales reflected in the 2nd quarter VAT returns of CY 2008, only Php365,670,700.38 was found to be properly substantiated as sales of services made to NRFCs not engaged in business within the Philippines. This was computed as follows: 81 aScITE Details Reference Total Total zero-rated sales per VAT return Exhibit P-3 Php405,589,744.27 Less : Disallowed zero-rated sales a) Sales supported by ORs and SEC Certificate of Non-Registration but without Foreign Registration Documents Annex C of the ICPA Report 2,281,435.96 b) Sales supported by ORs but without SEC Certificate of Non- Registration and Foreign Registration Documents Annex C of the ICPA Report 37,637,607.93 Properly substantiated zero-rated sales Php365,670,700.38 Given this, the percentage of the valid and properly supported VAT zero-rated sales to the total amount of VAT zero-rated sales in the VAT return for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 is 90.16%, computed as follows: Particulars Amount of sale Ratio A) Properly substantiated and reported zero-rated sales Php365,670,700.38 (A/C) 90.16% (B) Disallowed zero-rated sales 39,919,043.89 (B/C) 9.84% (C) Total zero-rated sales per VAT return Php405,589,744.27 (C/C) 100.00% Thus, petitioner was able to prove that it had zero-rated sales of services in the total amount of Php365,670,700.38 for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008. Petitioner properly substantiated its VATable sales up to the amount of Php 3,248,083.08 and output VAT up to the amount of Php389,769.97 Considering that petitioner likewise earned VATable sales during the 2nd quarter of CY 2008, it is necessary for this Court to determine if these VATable sales of services were likewise properly substantiated by petitioner. Initially, the VATable sales as declared in the 2nd quarter VAT returns of CY 2008 82 were compared with the VATable sales per Schedule of VATable sales. 83 This comparison revealed no discrepancy. Subsequently, the Output VAT per 2nd quarter VAT returns of CY 2008 84 were then compared with the Output VAT per Schedule of VATable sales. 85 This likewise did not result in any discrepancy: Particulars Reference Amount Output VAT per 2nd quarter VAT Return Exhibit P-3 Php389,769.97 Less : Output VAT per schedule Exhibit P-16 389,769.97 Difference Php- Accordingly, this Court was able to validate the accuracy of the amount of VATable Sales and Output VAT reflected in petitioner's VAT return for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 since the translated amount in Peso of sales denominated in Euro tallies with the total sales per VAT return. 86 Further verification made by this Court revealed that the amount of VATable sales per VAT return 87 was fully substantiated with VAT ORs, 88 as follows: 89 Particulars Reference Amount VATable sales per 2nd quarter VAT Return Exhibit P-3 Php3,248,083.08 Less : VATable Sales supported with ORs Annex D of the ICPA Report 3,248,083.08 Difference Php- Thus, petitioner was able to prove that it had VATable sales of services in the total amount of Php3,248,083.08 and output VAT due of Php389,769.97 for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008. Petitioner properly substantiated its input VAT from its purchases. It is entitled to an input VAT refund of Php3,032,273.05. Sections 110 (A), 113 (A) and (B), and 237 of the NIRC clearly provide the invoicing requirements that should be complied with by a taxpayer-claimant in order that his or her claim for input VAT refund may prosper. The said provisions provide, as follows: "SEC. 110. Tax Credits. A. Creditable Input Tax. (1) Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued in accordance with Section 113 hereof on the following transactions shall be creditable against the output tax: (a) Purchase or importation of goods: (i) For sale; or (ii) For conversion into or intended to form part of a finished product for sale including packaging materials; or (iii) For use as supplies in the course of business; or (iv) For use as materials supplied in the sale of service; or (v) For use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation or amortization is allowed under this Code. [19] (b) Purchase of services on which a value-added tax has been actually paid. (2) The input tax on domestic purchase or importation of goods or properties by a VAT-registered person [8] shall be creditable: (a) To the purchaser upon consummation of sale and on importation of goods or properties; and (b) To the importer upon payment of the value-added tax prior to the release of the goods from the custody of the Bureau of Customs. Provided, that the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (P1,000,000): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, further, That the amortization of the input VAT shall only be allowed until December 31, 2021 after which taxpayers with unutilized input VAT on capital goods purchased or imported shall be allowed to apply the same as scheduled until fully utilized: [108] Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or free. (3) A VAT-registered person who is also engaged in transactions not subject to the value-added tax shall be allowed tax credit as follows: (a) Total input tax which can be directly attributed to transactions subject to value-added tax; and (b) A ratable portion of any input tax which cannot be directly attributed to either activity. The term "input tax" means the value-added tax due from or paid by a VAT-registered person in the course of his trade or business on importation of goods or local purchase of goods or services, including lease or use of property, from a VAT-registered person. It shall also include the transitional input tax determined in accordance with Section 111 of this Code. The term "output tax" means the value-added tax due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or properties or services by any person registered or required to register under Section 236 of this Code." "SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons. (A) Invoicing Requirements. A VAT-registered person shall issue: (1) A VAT invoice for every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties; and (2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services. (B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt: (1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN); and (2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax. Provided, That: (a) The amount of the tax shall be known as a separate item in the invoice or receipt; (b) If the sale is exempt from value-added tax, the term VAT-exempt sale: shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) value-added tax, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt. (d) If the sale involved goods, properties or services some of which are subject to and some of which are VAT zero-rated or VAT exempt, the invoice or receipt shall clearly indicate the break-down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the sale shall be known on the invoice or receipt: Provided, That the seller may issue separate invoices or receipts for the taxable, exempt, and zero-rated components of the sale. (3) The date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; and (4) In the case of sales in the amount of One thousand pesos (P1,000) or more where the sale or transfer is made to a VAT-registered person, the name, business style, if any, address and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser, customer or client." "SEC. 237. Issuance of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. (A) Issuance. All persons subject to an internal revenue tax shall, at the point of each sale and transfer of merchandise or for services rendered valued at One hundred pesos (P100.00) or more, issue duly registered receipts or sales or commercial invoices, showing the date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of merchandise or nature of service: Provided, however, That where the receipt is issued to cover payment made as rentals, commissions, compensations, fees, receipts or invoices shall be issued which shall show the name, business style, if any, and address of the purchaser, customer or client: Provided, further, That where the purchaser is a VAT-registered person, in addition to the information herein required, the invoice or receipt shall further show the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the purchaser. xxx xxx xxx" To summarize, the invoicing requirements which petitioner must comply with in order that its claim for refund or issuance of TCC for unutilized or excess input VAT may prosper are, as follows: 90 "a) Input taxes on domestic purchases are supported by TIN VAT Invoices (for purchases of goods) dated within April 2008 to June 2008 or TIN VAT ORs (for purchase services) dated within April 2008 to June 2008 issued by the suppliers with the name, address and TIN of petitioner; b) The quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service are indicated in the invoices or receipts, as applicable; c) The amount of the input VAT is presented as a separate item in the invoices or receipts; d) The break-down of the sale price between its taxable, exempt and zero-rated components, and the calculation of the value-added tax on each portion of the sale is presented on the invoice or receipt; e) The amount in figures tally with those in words, if written, in the invoices or receipts; f) Input taxes on domestic purchases of goods and services are generally computed by dividing the total supporting invoice/OR amount by 112% and subsequently multiplying by twelve percent (12%); g) Corrections are duly countersigned; and h) Photocopies are certified true copies of the original." Before examining the various source documents of petitioner's input VAT claims to determine compliance with the VAT invoicing requirements, there is a need to first determine if the input VAT claimed by petitioner is consistent per VAT return, per claim for VAT refund and per Summary of Input VAT. In petitioner's 2nd quarter VAT returns for CY 2008, it declared the following input VAT: 91 DETACa Particulars Reference Input VAT Current Purchases a. Purchases of Capital Goods not exceeding Php1Million Exhibit P-3 Php3,032.14 b. Purchases of Capital Goods exceeding Php1Million 954,979.75 c. Domestic Purchases of Goods Other than Capital Goods 1,199,509.16 d. Domestic Purchases of Services 23,832,557.89 e. Services Rendered by Non-residents 3,802,905.31 Total input VAT Php29,792,984.25 Input VAT applied for Refund 29,792,984.25 Difference Php- The input VAT per VAT return 92 was then compared with the input VAT per judicial claim as set forth in this Petition and with the input VAT per Summary of Input VAT. 93 In both comparisons, this Court found no discrepancy. Petitioner's input VAT is thus consistent per VAT return, per judicial claim and per Summary of Input VAT. This Court shall now determine if petitioner's input VAT refund claims are compliant with the VAT invoicing requirements as provided in the provisions cited above. For the domestic purchases of goods other than capital goods and services, this Court traced the input VAT from the Company's Summary of Input VAT 94 to the related original supporting documents. 95 Following this procedure, this Court found that out of the Php25,032,067.05 total input VAT on domestic purchases of goods and services per Summary of Input VAT for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008, only Php14,406.26 is properly supported by sales invoices and ORs that meet the substantiation requirements for input VAT, as summarized below: 96 Details Reference Input VAT a) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by original invoice Annex E-1 of the ICPA Report Php5,307.02 b) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by original invoices but presented as purchases of services in the VAT Return Annex F-1 of the ICPA Report 9,099.24 Total input VAT without exceptions Php14,406.26 On the other hand, the remaining input VAT of P25,017,660.79 is broken down as follows: 97 Details Reference Input VAT Purchases of Goods other Capital Goods a) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by photocopy of original invoices Annex E-2 of the ICPA Report Php135,515.51 b) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by original invoices where amount of VAT, name, TIN, and/or address are not indicated, incorrect or incomplete Annex E-3 of the ICPA Report 7,906.50 c) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by photocopy of original invoices where amount of VAT, name, TIN, and/or address are not indicated, incorrect or incomplete Annex E-4 of the ICPA Report 633,485.34 d) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by documents other than invoices Annex E-5 of the ICPA Report 144,591.68 e) Purchases of services not properly supported by original official receipts and presented as purchases of goods in the VAT Return Annex E-6 of the ICPA Report 8,367.58 f) Unsupported purchases of goods Annex E-7 of the ICPA Report 264,335.53 Sub-total (A) Php1,194,202.14 Purchases of Services a) Purchases of services supported by photocopy of original official receipts Annex F-2 of the ICPA Report Php1,550,522.70 b) Purchases of services supported by photocopy of original official receipts where amount of VAT, name, TIN, and/or address are not indicated, incorrect or incomplete Annex F-3 of the ICPA Report 15,117,437.29 c) Purchases of services supported by documents other than official receipts Annex F-4 of the ICPA Report 2,089,061.08 d) Unsupported purchases of services Annex F-5 of the ICPA Report 5,066,437.58 Sub-total (B) Php23,823,458.65 Total input VAT with exceptions (C=A+B) Php25,017,660.79 As regards the purchases of services from non-residents, this Court found that purchases of services from non-residents amounting to P3,802,905.31 as indicated in the VAT return 98 are properly reflected in the duly filed and paid BIR Form No. 1600 for the months of April, May, and June 2008. A comparison of the VAT return and the BIR Form No. 1600 for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 was performed, and no discrepancy was found, as follows: 99 Particulars Reference Input VAT Per VAT Return Exhibit P-3 Php3,802,905.31 Less : Per BIR Form No. 1600 Annex G 3,802,905.31 Difference Php- With respect to the purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million, after checking the compliance with the substantiation requirements, this Court determined that out of Php3,032.14 reported input VAT from current purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million, only Php771.43 was found to be valid and properly supported, resulting to the disallowance of the remaining Php2,260.71 as summarized below: 100 Particulars Reference Input VAT A. Without Exceptions a) Purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million supported by certified true copy of original invoices Annex I-1 of the ICPA Report Php771.43 Sub-total (A) Php771.43 B. With Exceptions a) Purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million supported by documents other than invoices Annex I-2 of the ICPA Report Php1,821.42 b) Unsupported purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million Annex I-3 of the ICPA Report 439.29 Sub-total (B) Php2,260.71 Total input VAT on capital goods not exceeding Php1million (C=A+B) Php3,032.14 On the other hand, as regards petitioner's purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million, only Php375,059.57 of the Php954,979.75 claimed input VAT was found to be valid and properly supported by valid sales invoices resulting in the disallowance of the remaining Php579,920.18, viz. : 101 Particulars Reference Input VAT A. Without Exceptions a) Purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million supported by certified true copy of original invoices Annex H-1 of the ICPA Report Php375,059.57 Sub-total (A) Php375,059.57 B. With Exceptions c) Purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million supported by documents other than invoices Annex H-2 of the ICPA Report Php553,917.66 d) Unsupported purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million Annex H-3 of the ICPA Report 26,002.52 Sub-total (B) Php579,920.18 Total input VAT on capital goods exceeding Php1million (C=A+B) Php954,979.75 However, not all of the Php375,059.57 properly supported input VAT on petitioner's purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million can be claimed for the subject period considering that this amount is subject to amortization over sixty (60) months or the useful life of the capital goods, whichever is shorter. As shown by the computation below, only Php7,929.40 can be claimed for input VAT refund during the subject period, 102 to wit .: NAME OF SUPPLIER AMOUNT OF INPUT VAT IN PESO USEFUL LIFE OR 60 MONTHS, WHICHEVER IS SHORTER MONTHLY ALLOWABLE INPUT TAX RECOGNIZED LIFE ALLOWABLE INPUT TAX FOR THE PERIOD INPUT VAT DEFERRED FOR THE SUCCEEDING PERIOD Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,680.50 48 55.84 2 111.69 2,568.81 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 1,071.43 48 22.32 1 22.32 1,049.11 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 698.36 48 14.55 1 14.55 683.81 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 535.71 48 11.16 1 11.16 524.55 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 439.29 48 9.15 1 9.15 430.14 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 760.71 48 15.85 1 15.85 744.86 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 12,483.00 48 260.06 1 260.06 12,222.94 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,080.50 48 43.34 1 43.34 2,037.16 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,155.50 48 44.91 1 44.91 2,110.59 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 4,161.00 48 86.69 1 86.69 4,074.31 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,080.50 48 43.34 1 43.34 2,037.16 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,871.00 48 59.81 2 119.63 2,751.38 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 14,563.50 48 303.41 1 303.41 14,260.09 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 326,250.00 48 6,796.88 1 6,796.88 319,453.13 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 2,228.57 48 46.43 1 46.43 2,182.14 TOTAL 375,059.57 7,813.74 7,929.40 367,130.17 ========= ======= ======= ========= Petitioner was thus able to prove compliance with the sixth and seventh requisites for input VAT refund. Indeed, the subject input taxes are not transitional input taxes but those incurred and paid for purchases of goods and services in relation to petitioner's zero-rated sales of services. HEITAD Except for those purchases which did not comply with the VAT invoicing requirements, petitioner incurred excess or unutilized input taxes. Only Php3,826,012.40 out of the Php29,792,984.25 input VAT for the 2nd quarter of CY 2008 represents valid and properly substantiated input VAT, computed as follows: 103 Particulars Reference Amount Total 1. Domestic purchase of goods other than capital goods and services a) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by original invoice Php5,307.02 b) Purchases of goods other than capital goods supported by original invoices but presented as purchases of services in the VAT Return 9,099.24 Php14,406.26 2. Purchase of services rendered by non-residents a) Purchases of services from non-residents supported by BIR Form No. 1600 Php3,802,905.31 3. Purchase of capital goods not exceeding Php1million a) Purchases of capital goods not exceeding Php1million supported by certified true copy of original invoices Php771.43 4. Purchase of capital goods exceeding Php1million a) Purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1million supported by certified true copy of original invoices Annex H-1 Php7,929.40 Total properly substantiated and allowable input VAT Php3,826,012.40 As petitioner had VATable sales during the year, the eighth requisite in claiming input VAT refund mandates that 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. Further, since petitioner has an output VAT due for the subject period arising from its VATable sales, the ninth requisite for claiming input VAT refund requires that any input taxes in favor of petitioner must first be applied to such output VAT. Following the eight and ninth requisite for claiming input VAT refund, petitioner is entitled to an input VAT refund in the total amount of 3,032,273.05, as follows: Particulars Amount Properly substantiated and allowable input VAT Php3,826,012.40 Multiply by: Ratio of valid and properly supported VAT zero-rated sales over total sales ( i.e. , including VATable sales) 104 89.44% Input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales Php3,422,043.02 Less: Input VAT to be applied against Output VAT for the Quarter 389,769.97 Unutilized excess input VAT that may be refunded Php3,032,273.05 Finally, this Court reviewed petitioner's VAT Returns for the subsequent quarters 105 to determine whether the unutilized excess input VAT for the 2nd quarter ended 30 June 2008 was carried-over to the succeeding quarters and/or applied against petitioner's output tax liabilities. This Court found that subject input VAT claim was not applied against petitioner's output tax liabilities. Thus, petitioner is indeed entitled to a partial VAT refund in the amount of Php3,032,273.05. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE, LTD. is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED . Respondent is ORDERED to refund or issue a TCC in favor of petitioner in the reduced amount of Three Million Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Three and 5/100 Pesos (Php3,032,273.05) representing excess and unutilized input VAT attributable to petitioner's zero-rated sales of services. aDSIHc SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, J. , concurs. Footnotes 1. See Statement of the Case, Pre-Trial Order, Records, Vol. 3, p. 1001. 2. See The Parties, Petition for Review, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2; Exhibit "P-1", Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1403-1420. 3. Exhibit "P-2", Records, Vol. 2, p. 693. 4. See Admitted Fact, Pre-Trial Order, Records, Vol. 3, p. 1002. 5. Exhibit "P-3", id. , p. 694. 6. Exhibits "P-4" and "P-4-1", id. , pp. 712-717. 7. Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-39. 8. Id. , pp. 49-55. 9. See Resolution, dated 30 March 2011, id. , pp. 112-129; See Resolution, dated 8 August 2011, id. , pp. 148-153. 10. Id. , pp. 387-405. 11. Id. , pp. 410-426. 12. Id. , pp. 427-434. 13. See Amended Decision, dated 9 May 2013, id. , pp. 435-449. 14. Records, Vol. 2, pp. 510-540. 15. Id. , pp. 600-607. 16. Id. , pp. 608-610. 17. Id. , pp. 616-618. 18. Id. , pp. 619-628. 19. Exhibit "P-9", Id. , pp. 629-929. 20. Id. , pp. 930-933. 21. Id. , pp. 936-944. 22. Id. , pp. 946-970 and pp. 977-998. 23. Id. , pp. 974-976. 24. Records, Vol. 3, pp. 999-1006. 25. Id. , pp. 1010-1024. 26. Id. , pp. 1028-1031. 27. Exhibit "P-11", id. , pp. 1099-1274. 28. Id. , pp. 1279-1280. 29. Exhibit "P-30", id. , pp. 1282-1296. 30. Id. , pp. 1299-1301. 31. Exhibit "P-30", id. , pp. 1346-1356. 32. Exhibit "P-5.14", id. , p. 1356. 33. Id. , pp. 1355-1362. 34. Id. , pp. 1368-1523. 35. Id. , pp. 1524-1527; See Amended Formal Offer of Evidence, Id ., pp. 1538-1579. 36. See Resolution, dated 7 April 2022, id. , pp. 1580-1586; See Resolution, dated 20 July 2022, Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1670-1676. 37. Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1650-1661. 38. Id. , pp. 1677-1705. 39. Id. , p. 1708. 40. See Issue, Pre-Trial Order, Records, Vol. 2, p. 1002. 41. Records, Vol. 4, pp. 1688-1703. 42. Id. , pp. 1651-1658. 43. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 155732, 27 April 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 180345, 25 November 2009; AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182364, 3 August 2010. 44. Steag State Power, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 205282, 14 January 2019; Rohm Apollo Semiconductor Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168950, 14 January 2015. 45. Silicon Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intel Philippines Manufacturing, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182737, 2 March 2016. 46. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 155732, 27 April 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 180345, 25 November 2009; AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182364, 3 August 2010. 47. Ibid . 48. Ibid . 49. Ibid . 50. Ibid . 51. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 155732, 27 April 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 180345, 25 November 2009. 52. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 155732, 27 April 2007; San Roque Power Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 180345, 25 November 2009; AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 182364, 3 August 2010. 53. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 231581, 10 April 2019. 54. Id. ; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 206079-80 and 206309, 17 January 2018. 55. Exhibits "P-4" and "P-4-1", Records, Vol. 2, pp. 712-717. 56. Records, Vol. 1, p. 1. 57. See Resolution, dated 26 September 2018, Records, Vol. 2, pp. 603-606. 58. 10 December 2003. 59. G.R. No. 184823, 6 October 2010, 632 SCRA 422, 443-444. 60. Exhibit "P-2", Records, Vol. 2, p. 693. 61. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc. , G.R. No. 153205, 22 January 2007. 62. Exhibit "P-1", Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1403-1420. 63. Exhibits "P-6 to P-6.12". 64. Exhibits "P-7 to P-7.3" and "P-8 to P-8.13". 65. Exhibits "P-5 to P-5.14". 66. Exhibit "P-15". 67. Exhibit "P-11". 68. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 69. Exhibit "P-13". 70. Exhibit "P-11". 71. Ibid . 72. Exhibit "P-14". 73. Exhibit "P-11". 74. Exhibit "P-15". 75. Exhibit "P-11". 76. Ibid . 77. Exhibit "P-14". 78. Exhibit "P-11". 79. Exhibits "P-5 to P-5.14". 80. Exhibits "P-7 to P-7.3" and "P-8 to P-8.13". 81. In the ICPA Report (Exhibit "P-11"), the ICPA likewise disallowed an amount of Php24,655,106.21 zero-rated sales since petitioner failed to present an SEC Certification of Non-Registration for the alleged NRFC client, "Deutsche Bank AG Sydney." However, this negative certification was subsequently submitted by petitioner and offered in evidence through the Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Angue (Exhibit "P-30", Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1346-1356) as Exhibit "P-5.14" (Records, Vol. 3, p. 1356). Thus, the ICPA's disallowance of such zero-rated sale is no longer called for. 82. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 83. Exhibit "P-16". 84. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 85. Exhibit "P-16". 86. Exhibit "P-11". 87. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 88. Exhibit "P-16". 89. Exhibit "P-11". 90. Exhibit "P-11". 91. Ibid . 92. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 93. Exhibit "P-18". 94. Ibid . 95. Exhibit "P-19". 96. Exhibit "P-11". 97. Ibid . 98. Exhibit "P-3", Records, Vol. 2, p. 694. 99. Exhibit "P-11". 100. Ibid . 101. Ibid . 102. Annex "H-1" of the ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-11". 103. Ibid . 104. Properly substantiated zero-rated sales (Php365,670,700.38)/(Total sales (Php408,837,827.35) = Total zero rated sales (Php405,589,744.27) + VATable Sales (Php3,248,083.08)). 105. Exhibits "P-3.2 to P-3.9".