Greenhills Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 8295. February 10, 2017.] GREENHILLS PROPERTIES, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . AMENDED DECISION CASANOVA , J p : Before this Court is petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration with Motion to Present Evidence is [sic] Support of the Motion for Reconsideration filed, through registered mail, on June 3, 2015, with respondent's Comment/Opposition filed on July 16, 2015. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on May 15, 2015 on the following grounds: I. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency withholding tax expanded (EWT) in the basic amount of P69,897.50 on professional fees paid; II. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency EWT in the basic amount of P64,813.92 on income payments made by top 20,000 suppliers of goods and services; III. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency income tax arising from disallowed expense due to failure to withhold the required taxes on P3,430,750.10 of income payments to regular suppliers of goods and services; IV. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency income tax arising from disallowed expense due to failure to withhold the required taxes on P59,100.00 of salaries and wages; V. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency income tax on P2,234.69 representing disallowed creditable tax credits claimed; VI. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for deficiency final withholding tax (FWT) on P24,644,156.30 cash dividends declared by GPI in 2007; VII. The Court gravely erred in ruling that GPI is liable for improperly accumulated earnings tax (IAET) on alleged improperly accumulated earnings of P487,536,722.00; and VIII. The Court gravely erred in imposing twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge on the alleged deficiency internal revenue tax liabilities of GPI for 2007. On hindsight, this Court granted petitioner's Motion to Present Evidence in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration on September 14, 2015. 1 Then, after petitioner's presentation and formal offer of additional evidence, the Motion for Reconsideration was submitted for resolution on November 11, 2016. 2 CAIHTE In its Motion, petitioner assails the Court's ratiocinations on the following assessments for taxable year (TY) 2007: I. Basic Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax A. Professional Fees P69,897.50 B. Income Payments Made by Top 20,000 Suppliers 64,813.92 of Goods and Services II. Basic Deficiency Income Tax A. Disallowed Expense due to Failure to Withhold 3,430,750.10 on Income Payments to Regular Suppliers of Goods and Services B. Disallowed Expense due to Failure to Withhold 59,100.00 on Salaries and Wages C. Disallowance of Creditable Tax Withheld 2,234.69 III. Deficiency Final Withholding Tax Cash Dividends 2,464,415.63 IV. Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax 487,536,722.00 V. Imposition of 25% Surcharge I. Basic Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax A. Professional Fees P69,897.50 Petitioner contends that the Court, instead of cancelling the assessment, reduced the same for deficiency EWT from P343,976.38 to P69,897.50 on the following professional fees, viz. : Amount EWT Due EWT Paid Deficiency EWT Professional fees subject to EWT PHRC Property Managers P987,550.93 P148,132.64 P98,755.14 P49,377.50 Professional fees not subject to EWT CL Manabat 200,000.00 20,000.00 - 20,000.00 Professional fees without withholding EM Zalamea Actuarial 5,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Nestor Pugna 200.00 20.00 - 20.00 Total P69,897.50 Specifically, petitioner assails the imposition of a 15% withholding tax rate on income payments to PHRC Property Managers ("PHRC") and 10% withholding tax on the alleged income payments to CL Manabat. 1. Income payments to PHRC P49,377.55 Petitioner argues that the Court erred in applying the tax rate of 15% EWT on petitioner's income payments to PHRC. According to petitioner, the Court upheld that it has validly reflected in its books the reimbursable expenses of its El Pueblo tenants, which include the income payments to PHRC. Thus, the income payments made to PHRC should be reduced by the expenses reimbursable by the said tenants, which amounted to P287,499.00. As such, the income payments on which petitioner actually had an obligation to withhold on and remit to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) only amounts to P700,051.93 out of the P987,550.93 payment. Considering that the alleged income payment is lower than the threshold amount of P720,000.00, pursuant to Section 2.57.2 (B) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 02-98, the applicable withholding tax rate should be 10%, which was already withheld by petitioner in 2007. The Court finds petitioner's analysis erroneous. The fees received by the condominium corporation such as herein petitioner, are reimbursements of the common charges allocated among its members/tenants, and the concept of such receipt is merely to hold the amount in trust; hence, not subject to income tax. This matter has already been explained in the assailed Decision, 3 as follows: "The BIR in its various rulings, held that association/condominium dues, membership fees and other assessment/charges collected from the members, which are merely held in trust and which are to be used solely for administrative expenses in implementing their purpose(s), viz. , to protect and safeguard the welfare of the owners, lessees and occupants; provide utilities and amenities for their members, and from which the corporation could not realize any gain or profit as a result of their receipt thereof, must not be included in said corporation's gross income . This means that the same are not subject to income tax and to withholding tax. The report of the Court-commissioned ICPA shows that these common area expenses, although reported for VAT purposes by petitioner as these are VATable transactions, did not form part of petitioner's income and were not reported as such for the taxable year 2007. In this regard, petitioner presented the official receipts (ORs) issued to the tenants for the reimbursement of expenses, cash receipts book showing that the reimbursements were recorded as reduction to expenses upon collection, and check vouchers (CVs) prepared for the payment of expenses (including reimbursables) and the corresponding official receipts issued by the service providers." However, when the common charges are paid by petitioner to the service providers, such as the PHRC, the same constitute as income payments to the latter. Hence, these income payments are considered as income of PHRC subject to income tax, and consequently, petitioner, as the income payor, is required to withhold the corresponding tax from such income payment pursuant to Section 2.57.2 (A) and (B) of RR No. 02-98. Moreover, if petitioner really believes, as it now insists, that the base amount subject to EWT should be P700,051.93, net of the reimbursable amount of P287,499.00, it would have paid only P70,005.19 (10% of P700,051.93), instead of its actual payment of P98,755.09 (10% of the gross professional fees of P987,550.93). DETACa Finding no error in the ruling on this matter, the Court upholds the same. 2. Income payments to CL Manabat P20,000.00 Petitioner reiterates that CL Manabat is a general professional partnership duly registered with the SEC (Exhibit "VV") ; thus, the alleged income payment thereto, in the amount of P200,000.00 is exempt from withholding tax under RR No. 02-98. This was allegedly confirmed by the Court-commissioned Independent ICPA, Mr. Michael Aguirre, in paragraphs 16 to 21 of his judicial Affidavit dated January 31, 2012 (Exhibit "XX") . This Court is not persuaded by petitioner's arguments. While it is true that general professional partnerships are exempt from withholding taxes, nevertheless, it must not be presumed that it can be automatically claimed by petitioner. The Articles of Partnership of CL Manabat marked as Exhibit "VV" merely proves that such entity is one of those exempted from income and withholding tax, but it failed to establish that the amount of P200,000.00 are indeed income payments made to CL Manabat. The law and regulation exempts from withholding taxes the "income payments" made to such exempt entity. Accordingly, apart from proving the exempt nature of the income payee, petitioner must also prove that it actually made payments to such exempt entity to warrant its claim of exemption. On this score, petitioner failed to prove its payment to CL Manabat. As already explained in the assailed Decision 4 (p. 16), while petitioner presented pieces of evidence to prove that income payments were made to CL Manabat, such was lacking to the extent disallowed by this Court amounting to P200,00.00 n as the purported supporting document marked as Exhibit "I.87-ICPA" was not found in the records. Also, it is worth emphasizing that this Court is not bound by the findings of the ICPA. The report submitted by the ICPA is but a tool or guide to aid the Court in the resolution of the case. The determination of the merit or the probative value of such report is still within the province of the Court. In addition, the Court is free to adapt or disregard, completely or partially, the findings of the ICPA. It can even make its own audit and evaluation of the documents pertinent to the case presented during the trial in order to intelligently resolve the conflict brought before it. 5 The lack of evidence submitted for scrutiny limits this Court's capacity to verify the ICPA's findings and erase all doubts as to the disputes on the matter involved. There being no error in the assailed Decision, the said finding must be upheld. B. Income Payments Made by Top 20,000 Suppliers of Goods and Services P64,813.92 Petitioner argues that, based on the BIR's own regulations, a taxpayer receiving notice from the BIR that it is classified as a Large Taxpayer does not automatically mean that the said taxpayer is considered as a Top 20,000 Corporation for purposes of implementing the withholding tax expanded provision under Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR No. 02-98. Petitioner explains that the Large Taxpayer system was created by virtue of the issuance of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7646, which amended Section 4 (j), Section 5 (b) and Section 204 (1) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), in an effort to strengthen the monitoring and collection of internal revenue taxes from identified Large Taxpayers. The law was implemented by the Executive Department thru the issuance of Executive Order No. 83, Series of 1993, which was further implemented by the Department of Finance and the BIR through the issuance of Revenue Administrative Order No. 01-1993 on May 7, 1993 and regulatory issuances. On the other hand, the classification of Top 20,000 corporations was created specifically for the implementation of the withholding tax expanded provision Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR No. 12-98. In view thereof, petitioner contends that the Court cannot simply conclude that it is automatically included as a Top 20,000 corporation obligated to comply with the withholding tax expanded obligations under Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR No. 02-98, as amended, just because the BIR considered it as a Large Taxpayer. Petitioner further insists on its exemption from the duty to withhold on its purchases of goods and services as it was not notified by the BIR as belonging to the top 20,000 corporations. This Court is not persuaded. Pursuant to Section 2.57.2 (M) of RR No. 02-98, as amended by RR No. 17-03, any corporation which has been duly classified and notified as large taxpayer by the Commissioner pursuant to RR 1-98, as amended, shall be automatically considered as one of the top ten thousand (10,000) 6 private corporations, provided, however, that its authority as a withholding agent shall be effective only upon receipt of written notice from the Commissioner that it has been classified as a large taxpayer, as well as one of the top ten thousand (10,000) private corporations, for purposes of the withholding tax regulations. A second look at the notification from the BIR, which was attached by petitioner in its reply letter 7 to the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), protest letter 8 to the Final Assessment Notice (FAN), supplemental letter 9 (re: supplemental submission of relevant documents), and Petition for Review 10 filed before the Court, shows that petitioner was informed that it has been identified as one of the top 10,000 corporations, which is quoted below: "In relation to the Notice designating you as withholding agent under RR 17-2003 and RR 12-94, as amended, you are hereby likewise, notified that you are covered by RR 5-2004 dated April 26, 2004, mandating the Top 10,000 Withholding Agents to file and pay returns using the Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Since your corporation has been identified as one of the top 10,000 corporations , you are therefore required to start filing and paying your returns electronically starting July 1, 2004." (Emphasis Ours) Further, this Court observes that petitioner withheld taxes on its repairs and maintenance, security services, janitorial services, miscellaneous and stationeries and office supplies. The Court finds this inconsistent with petitioner's contention that it does not have a duty to withhold on its purchases of goods and services. If it is indeed not duty-bound to withhold as such, petitioner must have applied it to all of its purchases. It cannot later claim that it has duly complied with a duty to withhold on some purchases but has no such duty on the others. Thus, this Court finds no reason to reverse the assailed Decision on the matter. II. Basic Deficiency Income Tax A. Disallowed Expense due to Failure to Withhold on Income Payments to Regular Suppliers of Goods and Services P3,430,750.10 Finding no error in the assailed Decision on the deficiency EWT on income payments made by Top 10,000 suppliers of goods and services as discussed earlier, the corresponding disallowance as deduction from gross income amounting to P3,430,750.10 must also be upheld pursuant to Section 34 (K) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. B. Disallowed Expense due to Failure to Withhold on Salaries and Wages P59,100.00 Petitioner contends that the Court erred in affirming respondent's disallowance of petitioner's salary and wage deductions from gross income on the ground that it failed to withhold the corresponding tax, amounting to P59,100.00, pursuant to Section 34 (K) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. aDSIHc According to petitioner, the Court is confusing the disallowance of expense due to non-withholding under Section 34 (K) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, with the disallowance due to failure to substantiate with sufficient evidence under Section 34 (A) (1) (b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Petitioner argues that in the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD), specifically under subparagraph d, paragraph 1 of the Details of Discrepancies, the basis for disallowing the expense for Salaries and Wages in the original amount of P1,461,408.00 was due to the alleged failure of petitioner to withhold and remit to the BIR the corresponding withholding tax on compensation. Allegedly, the only matter for this Court's consideration is to determine whether these payments are subject to withholding tax and, if so, whether petitioner has remitted to the government the required withholding taxes. Petitioner avers that the Court already made a finding that the BIR's assessment was erroneous since the difference was due to employer's contributions remitted to the Social Security System (SSS) and Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) which were excluded from gross income pursuant to Section 32 (B) (7) (f) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Having already verified the tax-exempt nature of the discrepancy, the Court is allegedly in error when it demanded proof of remittance. Petitioner submits that the Court went beyond the scope of the BIR's final assessment when the issue for consideration is withholding tax, not failure to substantiate. This item of assessment therefore is allegedly without basis. This Court finds the arguments unmeritorious. While it is true that the employer's contributions to SSS and HDMF are exempt from withholding taxes, petitioner must, however, prove that the discrepancy in salaries and wages found by respondent in the amount of P59,100.00 actually pertains to the said contribution. As stated in the assailed Decision, based on the reconciliation schedule 11 and Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Gloria Unson, 12 the discrepancy between the claimed salaries and wages per Audited Financial Statements (AFS) of P1,343,600.00 and per alphalist of P1,284,500.00 in the amount of P59,100.00 represents the difference between the employer's contribution for HDMF and SSS premiums in the amount of P63,230.00 and overstatement of the gross compensation per alphalist in the amount of P4,130.00 (P63,230.00 less P4,130.00). However, this Court finds the said reconciliation schedule and Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Gloria Unson insufficient to support petitioner's claim. Petitioner should have submitted documents proving remittance to the SSS and HDMF of the amount of P63,230.00 to warrant exemption from withholding taxes. As such, this Court upholds the ruling on the matter. C. Disallowance of Creditable Tax Withheld P2,234.69 Petitioner posits that the assessment for deficiency income tax arising from the alleged unsupported creditable taxes claimed should be invalidated by this Court in its entirety, since respondent failed to inform petitioner of its allegations that there were unsupported creditable withholding taxes amounting to P142,458.00. Petitioner contends that respondent failed to provide schedule or computation on how the latter arrived at the amount allegedly unsupported. However, this Court believes that petitioner no longer needs a schedule or computation to be apprised on the alleged unsupported withholding taxes. To sufficiently refute said disallowance, petitioner can merely present all its BIR Forms 2307 to account for the amount declared in the ITR, which it actually did to support its claim. The said supporting documents were verified by the ICPA and presented as evidence (Exhibits "W.1-ICPA" to "W.125-ICPA") for the Court's perusal. However, said BIR Forms 2307 were found by the ICPA, and as concurred by the Court, to be short of P2,234.69. Thus, the same was disallowed in the assailed Decision. 13 Accordingly, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the assailed Decision. III. Basic Deficiency Final Withholding Tax (FWT) Cash Dividends P2,464,415.63 Petitioner seeks to reverse this Court's Decision in upholding respondent's deficiency FWT assessment on cash dividends amounting to P24,644,156.30 which were allegedly paid to Peridot Asset Holdings, Inc. ("Peridot") and Francisco Ortigas, Sr., Inc. ("Francisco"), both domestic corporations. This Court upheld the deficiency FWT assessment for petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence that the said corporations were actually petitioner's stockholders of record at the time of the dividend declaration and that the dividends were actually paid to them. To refute such finding, petitioner presented the Minutes 14 of Meeting of the Board of Directors held on June 30, 2007, which documented the declaration of cash dividends amounting to P50,000,000.00, payable to stockholders of record as of July 31, 2007; Stock Certificates 15 issued to Peridot and Francisco on March 4, 2004 and January 5, 2004, respectively; and Cash Disbursement Vouchers (CDVs) 16 issued to Peridot and Francisco, both dated August 23, 2007, amounting to P14,083,562.50 and P10,560,593.80, respectively. Verily, considering that the aforesaid exhibits were admitted by stipulation of the parties' counsels that they were faithful reproductions of the original or certified true copies of the originals, as per the Resolution dated November 11, 2016, petitioner is deemed to have sufficiently established that Peridot and Francisco are petitioner's stockholders of record at the time of the dividend declaration and that the dividends were actually paid to them. As such, having been both declared to domestic corporate stockholders, the cash dividends are exempt from FWT in accordance with Section 27 (D) (4) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides as follows: " SEC. 27. Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporations. xxx xxx xxx (D) Rate of Tax on Certain Passive Incomes. xxx xxx xxx (4) Intercorporate Dividends. Dividends received by a domestic corporation from another domestic corporation shall not be subject to tax. xxx xxx xxx." Accordingly, respondent's deficiency FWT assessment on petitioner's cash dividends in the amount of P24,644,156.30 is hereby cancelled and withdrawn. ETHIDa IV. Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax (IAET) P487,536,722.00 In the assailed Decision, respondent's assessment for IAET was upheld due to petitioner's failure to present convincing evidence to refute the assessment, taking into consideration the following findings: "However, upon careful examination of the BOD Resolution, the Court finds that it is incredulous that as early as April 19, 2006, the President of GPI, and also as resolved by the BODs, had already known that the amount of accumulated retained earnings as of December 31, 2006 will be P1,782,509,264.00 to base the amount which will be appropriated. And, more incredulously, such amount was exactly achieved by the end of 2006 as it was presented in the AFS under the year 2006 column of the Balance Sheet. Further, significant transactions such as appropriations of retained earnings are required to be presented in the financial statements as a disclosure to the Notes to the Financial Statements as per Philippine Accounting Standards (PAS) 1: Presentation of Financial Statements , paragraph 103, stating that the notes shall: (a) present information, about the basis of preparation of the financial statements and the specific accounting policies used in accordance with paragraphs 108-115; (b) disclose any information required by IFRSs that is not presented on the face of the balance sheet, income statement, statement of changes in equity, or cash flow statement; and (c) provide additional information that is no presented on the face of the balance sheet, income statement, statement of changes in equity, or cash flow statement that is deemed relevant to an understanding of any of them . (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner failed to comply with such disclosure requirement. A significant transaction such as an appropriation for future business expansion is one of the information needed to be disclosed in the financial statements to apprise (1) the stockholders, on the reduction of the retained earnings available for distribution to them; and (2) more importantly, the government and public, as to the entity's accountability as a taxpayer and a service provider." 17 Petitioner presented the testimony of its Accountant, Ms. Gloria Unson, stating that the date of the Minutes of Special Meeting of the Board of Directors (Minutes) approving the appropriation of P1,000,000,000.00 retained earnings actually happened in April 16, 2007, not in April 16, 2006, the latter date being merely a typographical error. 18 To corroborate this claim, petitioner presented the Notarial Book of Atty. Edgar Ryan C. San Juan showing that the said Minutes was notarized on July 2, 2007. 19 Still, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the assessment. First, this Court cannot give merit to Ms. Gloria Unson's testimony that there was a typographical error in the date indicated in the Minutes since the one who prepared it was the Corporate Secretary, Ms. Ma. Asuncion V. Romero, and not Ms. Unson. Hence, this Court cannot give credence to the testimony of Ms. Unson. Second, and more significantly, the fact of appropriation of unrestricted retained earnings of such substantial amount cannot be left undisclosed in the AFS. The reasons for requiring such disclosure was already adequately explained in the assailed Decision. Failure to disclose such significant information in the AFS has fatally defeated its claim as to the veracity, not only of the true date of the Board Meeting, but more so on the intention of petitioner to set aside funds to undertake future redevelopment projects. V. Imposition of 25% surcharge Petitioner avers that in the FLD (Exhibit "H"), the BIR only assessed the twenty five percent (25%) surcharge on the assessments for withholding tax final and improperly accumulated earnings tax. The BIR did not assess any surcharge for the assessment for deficiency withholding tax expanded and income tax. Petitioner further states that under Section 228 of the NIRC, a taxpayer is required to be informed in writing of the facts and the law on which the assessment is made, otherwise, the assessment is void. Thus, since the BIR did not assess any surcharge for the assessment for deficiency withholding tax expanded and income tax in the Formal Letter of Demand, the imposition by this Court of the twenty five percent (25%) surcharge on these items of assessment is void. This Court is not persuaded. The delay in the payment of the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment justifies the imposition of a 25% surcharge in consonance with Section 248 (A) (3) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, 20 which states: "SEC. 248. Civil Penalties. (A) There shall be imposed, in addition to the tax required to be paid, a penalty equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount due, in the following cases: xxx xxx xxx (3) Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment; or xxx xxx xxx" The payment of the surcharge is mandatory and the BIR is not vested with any authority to waive the collection thereof. 21 This is justified because the intention of the law is precisely to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due to the State and, in this sense, the surcharge and interest charged are not penal but compensatory in nature they are compensation to the State for the delay in payment, or for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date he is supposed to have paid them to the State. 22 WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, the Decision dated May 15, 2015 is hereby amended to read as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, the assessments issued by respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2007 covering deficiency value-added tax in the amount of P2,984,601.31, deficiency final withholding tax in the amount of P51,608,788.09 and compromise penalties in the amount of P50,000.00 are hereby CANCELLED . However, the assessments issued by respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2007 covering deficiency expanded withholding tax, income tax and improperly accumulated earnings tax are hereby AFFIRMED but with modifications. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY respondent the amount of SIXTY-TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P62,652,144.17) representing basic deficiency expanded withholding tax, income tax and improperly accumulated earnings tax and the 25% surcharge imposed under Section 248(3) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, computed as follows: cSEDTC Deficiency Tax Basic Surcharge Total Expanded Withholding Tax P134,711.42 P33,677.85 P168,389.27 Income Tax 1,233,331.72 308,332.93 1,541,664.65 Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax 48,753,672.20 12,188,418.05 60,942,090.25 Total P50,121,715.34 P12,530,428.83 P62,652,144.17 In addition, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY : a) Deficiency interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the basic deficiency EWT, income tax and IAET computed from the dates indicated below until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(B) of the NIRC, as amended; Deficiency Tax Basic Tax 20% Deficiency Interest computed from Expanded Withholding Tax P134,711.42 January 13, 2008 Income Tax 1,233,331.72 April 15, 2008 Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax 48,753,672.20 April 15, 2008 b) Delinquency interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the total amount of P62,652,144.17 and on the 20% deficiency interest which have accrued as aforestated in (a), computed from August 6, 2010 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. SO ORDERED. " SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., J. , concurs. Footnotes 1. Resolution, Docket (Vol. V), pp. 3045-3049. 2. Resolution, Ibid. , (Vol. VI), pp. 3173-3175. 3. Docket (Vol. V), pp. 2609-2663. 4. Docket (Vol. V), p. 2624. 5. First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , CTA E.B. Case No. 563 (CTA Case No. 6200), March 1, 2011. 6. Now top twenty thousand (20,000) private corporations. 7. Exhibit "F". 8. Exhibit "I". 9. Exhibit "L". 10. Docket (Vol. I), pp. 10-47. 11. Exhibit "O". 12. Exhibit "M 4 ". 13. Docket (Vol. V), p. 2645. 14. Exhibit "OOOOOO". 15. Exhibits "PPPPPP" and "PPPPPP-1". 16. Exhibits "RRRRRR" and "RRRRRR-1". 17. Docket (Vol. V), pp. 2659-2660. 18. Q&A No. 6, Judicial Affidavit of Gloria Unson, Exhibit "KKKKKK". 19. Exhibits "SSSSSS-2" and "SSSSSS-3". 20. Vda. de San Agustin vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. 138485, September 10, 2001. 21. Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 125704, August 28, 1998. 22. Republic vs. Philippine Bank of Commerce , G.R. No. L-20951, July 31, 1970 and Philippine Refining Company vs. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 118794, May 8, 1996. n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.