Transnational Plans, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SECOND DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9293. January 20, 2021.] TRANSNATIONAL PLANS, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA , J p : At bar is a Petition for Review 1 filed on 14 March 2016 by Transnational Plans, Inc. (petitioner/TPI) pursuant to Rule 8, Section 3 (a) 2 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) . It seeks the nullification of the Final Decision dated 11 February 2016 3 and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated 22 September 2014, 4 finding petitioner liable in the total amount of P29,009,628.15, inclusive of interest and penalty, allegedly representing its deficiency value-added tax (VAT) for taxable year (TY) 2008. Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at 2nd Floor, Mary Bacharch Building, corner 25th and Railroad Streets, Port Area, Manila. 5 It is primarily engaged in business as a pre-need company. 6 Respondent, on the other hand, is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent/CIR) vested with authority to carry out the functions, duties, and responsibilities of the said office including, inter alia , to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, other charges, and penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, or other laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) . FACTS OF THE CASE Petitioner received Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 20080033713 dated 01 July 2009 7 from the Large Taxpayers Audit and Investigation Division I (LTAID I) of the BIR, authorizing the examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for TY 2008. During the course of the audit investigation, petitioner, through its Chief Finance Officer (CFO) , Socorro Z. Niro (Niro) , successively executed six (6) Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitations of the NIRC, the details of which are as follows: CAIHTE Waiver Date of Execution Extension of Period to Assess Date Accepted by the BIR 1st Waiver 8 24 February 2011 30 September 2011 25 February 2011 2nd Waiver 9 06 September 2011 30 June 2012 11 September 2011 3rd Waiver 10 16 May 2012 31 December 2012 22 May 2012 4th Waiver 11 16 November 2012 30 June 2013 27 November 2012 5th Waiver 12 22 April 2013 31 December 2013 07 May 2013 6th Waiver 13 15 November 2013 30 June 2014 20 November 2013 Prior to the execution of the 5th and 6th waivers or on 12 April 2013, respondent issued a Notice of Informal Conference 14 (NIC) which petitioner received on 08 May 2013. 15 In response thereto, petitioner submitted a letter dated 29 May 2013 16 explaining the alleged discrepancy of figures in relation to the tax audit. On 30 January 2014, petitioner received a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated 28 January 2014, 17 with attached Details of Discrepancies for deficiency VAT for TY 2008 in the total amount of P27,422,799.21. On 13 February 2014, petitioner filed a Reply 18 contesting the preliminary findings contained in the PAN. Thereafter, on 14 March 2014, petitioner received a copy of the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated 12 March 2014, 19 with attached Details of Discrepancies and Audit Result/Assessment Notice. This was signed by then Officer-In-Charge Assistant Commissioner for Large Taxpayers Service, Alfredo V. Misajon (OIC-ACIR Misajon) . In the FLD, respondent ordered petitioner to pay a total amount of P27,864,416.70 as deficiency VAT for TY 2008. On 10 April 2014, petitioner filed its Protest 20 against the FLD, requesting for reconsideration of the assessment. On 24 September 2014, petitioner received a copy of the FDDA dated 22 September 2014 21 with attached Details of Discrepancies and Audit Result/Assessment Notice. This was signed by then OIC-ACIR Nestor S. Valeroso (Valeroso) . In the FDDA, petitioner's alleged deficiency VAT was increased to P29,009,628.15, computed as follows: Premiums subjected to VAT per VAT return P39,383,577.08 Add: Other Income/Adjustments 113,835,016.33 Total Sales subject to VAT 153,218,593.41 VAT due thereon at 12% 18,386,231.21 Less: Input VAT 459,220.76 VAT Payable 17,927,010.45 Less: VAT Paid per VAT return 4,266,808.49 Deficiency VAT 13,660,201.96 Add: Interest (computed up to 31 August 2014) 15,299,426.19 Compromise Penalty 50,000.00 Deficiency VAT, inclusive of interest and penalty P29,009,628.15 The FDDA included details of the discrepancies, as follows: DETACa Other Income/Adjustments Undeclared Premium Gross receipts per audit P141,730,991.00 Less: Premiums subjected to VAT per VAT return 39,383,577.08 P102,347,413.92 Other Income 5,062,538.00 Commission Income 1,167,909.00 Processing Fee 594,516.00 Surcharges and Lapsed Plan 2,884,424.00 Miscellaneous Fee 1,750,715.00 Undeclared Purchases 3,489.98 Undeclared Sales 24,010.43 Total amount still subject to VAT P113,835,016.33 On 24 October 2014, petitioner filed an administrative appeal, through a Request for Reconsideration of the FDDA, addressed to Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares (Commissioner Henares) . 22 On 11 February 2016, petitioner received a copy of the Final Decision, 23 which was signed by then Commissioner Henares, denying its administrative appeal. The said Final Decision likewise indicated that the aggregate amount of deficiency VAT for TY 2008 is P29,009,628.15, inclusive of interest and penalty. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST DIVISION On 14 March 2016, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, 24 praying for the setting aside and/or cancellation of the alleged deficiency VAT assessment of P29,009,628.15 as stated in the Final Decision dated 11 February 2016 and the FDDA dated 22 September 2014, for being devoid of factual or legal basis. Later or on 07 June 2016, respondent filed her Answer, 25 interposing the following special and affirmative defenses and We quote: xxx xxx xxx THE INSTANT PETITION WAS FILED BEYOND THE 30-DAY PERIOD FROM RECEIPT OF THE FINAL DECISION ON DISPUTED ASSESSMENT. xxx xxx xxx 7. With all due respect, petitioner's appeal must be outrightly dismissed for being filed out of time. 8. Petitioner received the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated September 22, 2014 on September 24, 2014 . xxx xxx xxx 10. Going by the tenor of Section 228 of the NIRC, petitioner has therefore 30 days from September 24, 2014 , within which to appeal the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment to the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals, or until October 24, 2014 . 11. Unfortunately for the petitioner, it filed its appeal with the Honorable Court only on March 14, 2016 . More or less Five Hundred Seven (507) days later from that prescribed under Section 228 of the Tax Code. 12. Consequently, the instant petition should not be given due course, Section 1(f) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court is explicit: aDSIHc xxx xxx xxx 13. Being so, the Honorable Court cannot take cognizance over the instant petition considering that it is a court of special jurisdiction and can only take cognizance of matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. . . . xxx xxx xxx 17. Accordingly, petitioner should have filed the instant Petition for Review within 30 days from receipt of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment counted from September 24, 2014 or until October 24, 2014 . 18. Hence, when petitioner filed the appeal on March 14, 2016 , the Honorable Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for review docketed as CTA Case No. [9293]. Resultantly, for failure of petitioner to file its appeal within the 30-day period provided by law, the assessments had already become final and demandable by operation of law. 19. Now, assuming without admitting that petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration; respondent most courteously asserts that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration against the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment does not toll the thirty (30)-day period to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. xxx xxx xxx 21. Unfortunately for the petitioner, its failure to file the Petition for Review within the period prescribed by law is very much apparent basing from the admissions in the Petition as cited and discussed above. Being such, the assessments are no longer subject to judicial scrutiny and beyond the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. THE ASSESSMENTS [HAVE] NOT PRESCRIBED SINCE VALID WAIVERS WERE EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT. 22. Petitioner alleges that the assessment for deficiency taxes has already prescribed and the Waivers are valid; however respondent posits that such contention is manifestly misplaced which will be discussed hereunder in seriatim. 22.1 First, the deficiency tax assessments have not prescribed; petitioner's allegation that the FLD-FAN was issued beyond the prescriptive period provided under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997 has no basis in fact and law. 22.2 On the contrary, a Waiver of the Defense of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations of the National Internal Revenue Code ("WAIVER") was executed extending the period to assess petitioner until 30 June 2014. 22.3 Assuming the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice was allegedly received on 12 March 2014, then the aforesaid assessment was clearly received way before [the] 30 June 2014 deadline. 22.4 Thus, the period of respondent to assess petitioner for deficiency VAT did not lapse. 22.5 Second, petitioner misleadingly avers that there was no Board Resolution authorizing the signatory to sign the Waivers in favor of the [p]etitioner. ETHIDa 22.6 Respondent deems it necessary to refresh petitioner's memory that the Waivers were duly signed by Ms. Socorro Z. Niro, its Chief Finance Officer who is the Corporation's responsible officer. 22.7 Assuming without admitting that there is no Board Resolution, it must be emphasized that an authority to sign the Waivers is not needed when the Waiver is signed by the taxpayer itself thru any of its responsible officials. Notably, Section 253 provides for responsible officials who may be penalized in case of violation on any provision of the Tax Code . . . xxx xxx xxx 22.8 As here, petitioner, through its representative Ms. Socorro Z. Niro voluntarily and validly executed the Waivers to extend the period of assessment which were duly accepted by respondent. xxx xxx xxx 22.10 Third, ACIR Alfredo V. Misajon is a Revenue Official duly authorized to sign the Waiver pursuant to RDAO 5-01. 22.11 Petitioner's reliance on the supposed CSC Resolution No. 93-5026 and its cited jurisprudence is inappropriate; the CSC Resolution pertains to the power to appoint while the cited jurisprudence pertaining to a Revenue District Officer who signed the Waiver has different factual milieu vis--vis the instant case. 22.12 Fourth, petitioner misleadingly avers that the third and fourth Waivers are unsigned by respondent. 22.13 On the contrary, mere perusal of the said Waivers as contained in the BIR Records of the instant case would show that the said documents are duly signed and accepted by Respondent. 22.14 Fifth, anent petitioner allegation that the fifth Waiver was not notarized, mere perusal of the said Waiver as contained in the BIR Records of the instant case would show that the said document was duly notarized. 22.15 Moreover, the first Waiver, fourth Waiver and sixth Waiver were likewise all duly notarized. 22.16 Now, assuming arguendo that the said Waivers lack competent evidence of identity, it is the notary public's duty to require compliance with the Notarial Law and not respondent's duty to do so. 22.17 Finally, assuming without admitting that the Waivers suffer from alleged infirmities, this cannot serve to exculpate petitioner. The execution of Waivers by both parties proved to be beneficial to petitioner considering that the Waivers constituted as a tool for petitioner to be provided for sufficient time to gather voluminous documents/records to support its position vis--vis respondent's assessment. 22.18 Besides, it is at the height of unfairness for petitioner to impugn the validity of the Waivers when it executed the said documents six times. It did not even bother questioning the validity of the first five (5) Waivers and even executed the sixth Waiver which is a clear acquiescence on its part. cSEDTC 22.19 Now, the very same Waivers utilized by petitioner for its own advantage is used against respondent to defeat the validity of the Waivers which both parties voluntarily executed. xxx xxx xxx 22.25 Thus, respondent's right to assess petitioner for deficiency VAT did not prescribe and the Waivers executed between the parties are valid and binding. RESPONDENT OBSERVED BOTH SUBSTANTIAL AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN ISSUING THE ASSESSMENT. 23. Respondent posits that she observed both procedural and substantial due process in issuing the assessment subject of this case. 24. Petitioner was informed of the factual and legal bases of the assessment. The Preliminary Assessment Notice with attached Details of Discrepancies, Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice with attached Details of Discrepancies and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment with attached Details of Discrepancies indicated not only the deficiency tax involved and interest due thereon, but also sufficiently stated the facts, the law, rules and regulations on which the assessment is based. 24.1 Anent petitioner's allegation that respondent failed to clearly attach a schedule and description which explains the computation and basis of the assessment. 24.2 Respondent posits that the assessment need not be a full narration of facts and the law on which the assessment was based. xxx xxx xxx 25. Likewise, the Letter of Authority, Notice of Informal Conference with attached Details of Discrepancies and Summary of Computation, Preliminary Assessment Notice with attached Details of Discrepancies, Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice with attached Details of Discrepancies and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment with attached Details of Discrepancies were issued in accordance with law, rules and jurisprudence. SDAaTC 25.1 Anent petitioner's allegation that respondent and her representative failed to consider the merits of [p]etitioner's contention against the deficiency taxes imputed against it; it also alleged that the FLD/FAN is an exact duplicate of the PAN thereby concluding that its arguments raised were allegedly not recognized. 25.2 Respondent respectfully submits that this is a non-sequitur argument. Petitioner's allegation that respondent failed to consider its argument is hypothetical and at its best merely speculative. 25.3 On the contrary, assuming without admitting that the FLD/FAN is an exact duplicate of the PAN; this is because petitioner's Reply does not have any meritorious grounds for the respondent to deviate from its deficiency assessment. THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED AGAINST PETITIONER IS VALID AND LAWFUL. 26. Assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawful where it does not appear to have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. 27. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is wrong but the taxpayer is right. Otherwise[,] the presumption of correctness of tax assessment stands. The presumption in favor of the correctness of [the] tax assessment stands where evidence to the contrary is wanting. Hence, the assessment issued against petitioner is imbued with factual and legal bases. 28. All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments. Dereliction on the part of petitioner to satisfactorily overcome the presumption of regularity and correctness of the assessment will justify the judicial upholding of said assessment notice. THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED AGAINST PETITIONER HAS FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES. 29. The Revenue Officers performed a comprehensive audit procedure taking into account relevant documents. Consequently, petitioner is liable to pay deficiency VAT for taxable year 2008. 30. The assessments issued against petitioner must stand as supported by the following factual and legal bases stated in the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment and Details of Discrepancies reiterated and incorporated hereunder, to wit: VALUE ADDED TAX VT-116-LOA-00033713-8-14-338 Premium subject to VAT per VAT return P39,383,577.08 Add: Other Income/Adjustments Undeclared Premium P102,347,413.92 Other Income 5,062,538.00 Commission income 1,167,909.00 Processing fee 594,516.00 Surcharges and lapsed plan 2,884,424.00 Miscellaneous fee 1,750,715.00 Undeclared purchases (SLP vs. AITEID vs. MAP 3,489.98 Undeclared sales (SLS vs. AITEID vs. SAWT) 24,010.43 113,835,016.33 Total Vatable Sale P153,218,593.41 Rate 12% OUTPUT TAX PER AUDIT P18,386,231.21 Input tax carried over from previous qtr. P- Add: Goods Other than Capital Goods 459,220.76 Total P459,220.76 Less: Deduction-Input tax on Capital Goods exceeding 1M - Total Net Input tax before adjustments (per return) P459,220.76 INPUT TAX PER AUDIT P459,220.76 VAT PAYABLE PER AUDIT P17,927,010.45 Less: VAT Paid per return 4,266,808.49 Deficiency Tax P13,660,201.96 Add: Interest (computed up to 8.31.2014) P15,299,426.19 Compromise Penalty 50,000.00 15,349,426.19 Total amount Due-VAT P29,009,628.15 xxx xxx xxx DETAILS OF DISCREPANCIES VALUE-ADDED TAX Income subject to VAT (P113,835,016.33) In your protest letter dated August 12, 2013 and April 10, 2014, the company asserts that the computation of Value Added Tax (VAT) on Pre-need companies should be the net of the actual trust fund contributions[,] citing BIR Ruling No. DA-027-2006 dated January 31, 2006. acEHCD Our position: We reiterate our position that the taxable base of pre-need companies for VAT purposes shall be the gross receipts without any deduction pursuant to RMC No. 74-2007. The said RMC was protested by the Federation of Pre-Need companies, Inc. but up to this time, the issue was still unsettled. Hence, the deficiency tax on VAT should be assessed pursuant to Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, as amended[,] and RMC 74-07[,] as analy[zed] hereunder. 26 xxx xxx xxx This Court issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference 27 on 13 June 2016 and set the same on 08 September 2016. Accordingly, the parties filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs. 28 During the pre-trial held on 24 November 2016, the Court granted both parties fifteen (15) days within which to file their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI) . 29 The parties submitted their JSFI on o9 December 2016. 30 Then, on 19 January 2017, the Court issued a Pre-Trial Order 31 which, upon petitioner's motion 32 and without respondent's comment, 33 the Court later amended on 27 October 2017. 34 Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Motion to Commission an Independent Certified Public Accountant 35 and moved for the commissioning of KPMG, represented by any of its partners, as Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) . However, having failed to finalize and reach an agreement with KPMG, petitioner subsequently moved for the commissioning of R.P. Mora & Co., represented by Atty. Rheiner P. Mora (Mora ), in lieu of KPMG. 36 Finding merit in petitioner's motion to commission an ICPA, the Court granted the same and Atty. Mora thereafter took his oath and signed his Oath of Commission. 37 Trial then ensued where petitioner presented the testimony of its witnesses, namely: (1) Atty. Karla Grace J. Deles (Deles) , petitioner's Corporate Secretary; (2) Marivic M. Anciado (Anciado) , petitioner's Chief Accountant; (3) Atty. Mora, the Court-commissioned ICPA; and, (4) Ma. Veronica S. Lao Guico (Lao Guico) , petitioner's President and General Manager. In her Judicial Affidavit, 38 Deles stated that she is petitioner's Corporate Secretary and that she was asked to verify, based on the corporate records in her custody, whether petitioner's Board of Directors adopted resolutions for the execution of the waivers with respect to the 2008 tax examination of petitioner's books. According to her, she did not find any record referring to such resolution. Neither was there any Secretary's Certificate attesting to such resolution. On the witness stand, Anciado identified her Judicial Affidavit 39 where she declared essentially that: (1) as Chief Accountant, she prepares petitioner's books of accounts and financial statements and is involved in the review, processing, initial approval and filing of tax returns, in the payment of taxes, as well as in the review of BIR assessments and audits; (2) petitioner received an FLD dated 12 March 2014 from the BIR which stated its VAT deficiency amounting to P27,864,416.70; (3) the BIR issued an FDDA dated 22 September 2014 stating that petitioner's VAT deficiency for TY 2008 already amounted to P29,009,628.15; (4) the BIR issued a Final Decision dated 11 February 2016 which reiterated petitioner's VAT deficiency in the amount of P29,009,628.15 as stated in the FDDA; and, (5) the deficiency VAT assessment, as stated in the 11 February 2016 Final Decision and 22 September 2014 FDDA, is erroneous and should be declared void for the following reasons: (a) the trust fund contributions, not being income or fees, should not have been included in the computation of gross receipts and subjected to VAT; (b) premium collections from seafarers who are non-residents should not have been subjected to VAT; (c) the "Related Parties Account" should not have been included in the computation of total collections; and, (d) "Other Income" was already reflected in the VAT returns. SDHTEC As for ICPA Mora, he identified his Judicial Affidavit 40 and ICPA Report dated 18 August 2017 showing the results of his examination of petitioner's documents. Per his independent examination and as stated in his ICPA Report, he found that: (1) based on the official receipts (ORs) issued by petitioner, the total amount of collections is higher than the total amount of collections recorded in its Cash Receipts Journal by P952,519.52; (2) petitioner deposited a total amount of P109,927,716.55 to its Trust Fund Accounts ( i.e. , Bank of the Philippine Islands, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and ING Bank N.V. Philippines), all of which were taken from its collections from planholders; (3) petitioner's withdrawals from the Trust Fund Accounts in the total amount of P40,536,187.18 were exclusively used for pre-terminated and matured plans during TY 2008; and, (4) petitioner's output VAT payable for TY 2008 should only be P3,867,432.35, but petitioner's output VAT paid per VAT returns is P4,726,029.25 (resulting in an output VAT overpayment of P858,596.90). As for Lao Guico, she identified her Judicial Affidavit 41 where she declared essentially that: (1) as President and General Manager, her responsibilities include the review of documents and reports such as tax returns, assessments, audits and correspondences with the BIR; (2) the BIR requested petitioner to execute a total of six (6) Waivers of the Defense of Prescription to extend the three-year prescriptive period allowed for it to assess any deficiency taxes against petitioner for TY 2008; (3) all waivers were executed and signed by petitioner's CFO, Niro, despite the absence of a board resolution authorizing her to sign such waivers; (4) considering that the FDDA was merely signed by OIC-ACIR Valeroso, petitioner opted to file on 24 October 2014 an administrative appeal before the BIR requesting for reconsideration of the FDDA; (5) respondent denied petitioner's administrative appeal in the Final Decision dated 11 February 2016 which was signed by then Commissioner Henares; (6) the deficiency VAT assessment, as stated in the 11 February 2016 Final Decision, is void since the BIR Examiner took more than 120 days to complete his audit of petitioner's 2008 books of account in violation of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 19-2009; and, at the time the FLD was issued, more than three (3) years have already elapsed from the filing of the 2008 VAT returns and thus the period to assess already prescribed as the waivers did not validly extend the three-year prescriptive period. Subsequently, on 17 April 2018, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence (FOE) , consisting of Exhibits "P-1" to "P-55-B", inclusive of sub-markings. 42 Respondent failed to file his comment per Records Verification dated 23 May 2018. 43 In the Resolution dated 29 August 2018, 44 the Court admitted petitioner's exhibits except for: (1) Exhibits "P-18", "P-19", "P-20", "P-21", "P-22", "P-23", "P-24" and "P-48 series", for failure to identify; 45 (2) Exhibits "P-31", "P-31-A" and "P-31-B", for failure to present the originals for comparison; 46 and, (3) Exhibits "P-43-1199", "P-43-1898", "P-43-3366", "P-49-705", "P-49-708", "P-49-709", "P-49-712", "P-49-713", "P-49-75", "P-49-718", "P-49-721", "P-49-722", "P-49-725", "P-49-726", "P-49-728", "P-49-730", "P-49-733", "P-49-736", "P-49-737", "P-49-740", "P-49-743", "P-49-746", "P-49-749", "P-49-757", "P-49-769", "P-49-774", "P-49-775", "P-49-778", "P-49-779", "P-49-782", "P-49-783", "P-49-785", "P-49-788", "P-49-791", "P-49-792", "P-49-795", "P-49-796", "P-49-798", "P-49-799", "P-49-803", "P-49-805", "P-49-808", "P-49-809", "P-49-811", "P-49-812", "P-49-813", "P-49-817", "P-49-820", "P-49-823", "P-49-826", "P-49-829" to "P-49-831", "P-49-834" to "P-49-843", "P-49-847", "P-49-848", "P-49-850" to "P-49-852", "P-49-858", "P-49-862" to "P-49-888", "P-49-891" to "P-49-893", "P-49-896", "P-49-899", "P-49-902", "P-49-903", "P-49-905", "P-49-908", "P-49-909", "P-49-912", "P-49-913", "P-49-916", "P-49-919", "P-49-922", "P-49-923", "P-49-926", "P-49-932", "P-49-933", "P-49-935", "P-49-937", "P-49-940" to "P-49-943", "P-49-946", "P-49-949", "P-49-950", "P-49-953", "P-49-954", "P-49-956", "P-49-958", "P-49-961", "P-49-964", "P-49-967", "P-49-970", "P-49-973", "P-49-976", "P-49-977", "P-49-979", "P-49-981", "P-49-984", "P-49-987", "P-49-989", "P-49-990" to "P-49-994", "P-49-996" to "P-49-999", "P-49-1001", "P-49-1002", "P-49-1004" to "P-49-1007", "P-49-1010" to "P-49-1012", "P-49-1014" to "P-49-1016", "P-49-1018", "P-49-1019", "P-49-1021", "P-49-1022", "P-49-1024", "P-49-1025", "P-49-1027", "P-49-1028", "P-49-1030" to "P-49-1036", "P-49-1038" to "P-49-1041", "P-49-1043" to "P-49-1045", "P-49-1047", "P-49-1048", "P-49-1050", "P-49-1052" to "P-49-1054", "P-49-1056", "P-49-1057", "P-49-1059", "P-49-1060", "P-49-1062" to "P-49-1064", "P-49-1066" to "P-49-1069", "P-49-1071" to "P-49-1074", "P-49-1076", "P-49-1077", "P-49-1079" to "P-49-1081", "P-49-1083", "P-49-1085" to "P-49-1090", "P-49-1092", "P-49-1095" to "P-49-1097", "P-49-1099" to "P-49-1101", "P-49-1103" to "P-49-1105", "P-49-1107", "P-49-1109", "P-49-1110", "P-49-1112", "P-49-1113", "P-49-1115", "P-49-1116", "P-49-1118", "P-49-1119", "P-49-1121" to "P-49-1124", "P-49-1126" to "P-49-1128", "P-49-1130" to "P-49-1132", "P-49-1134" to "P-49-1136", "P-49-1140", "P-49-1141", "P-49-1143", "P-49-1145", "P-49-1147", "P-49-1150" to "P-49-1152", "P-49-1156", "P-49-1158", "P-49-1159", "P-49-1163", "P-49-1164", "P-49-1166" to "P-49-1168", "P-49-1170", "P-49-1171", "P-49-1173" to "P-49-1175", "P-49-1177" to "P-49-1179", "P-49-1181", "P-49-1182", "P-49-1184", "P-49-1185", "P-49-1187" to "P-49-1189", "P-49-1192" to "P-49-1196", "P-49-1198" to "P-49-1201", "P-49-1203" to "P-49-1206", "P-49-1208", "P-49-1209", "P-49-1211" to "P-49-1213", "P-49-1215" to "P-49-1218", "P-49-1220", "P-49-1221", "P-49-1223" to "P-49-1226", "P-49-1228" to "P-49-1230", "P-49-1232", "P-49-1233", "P-49-1235" to "P-49-1240", "P-49-1243", "P-49-1244", "P-49-1246", "P-49-1247", "P-49-1251" to "P-49-1257", "P-49-1259" to "P-49-1263", "P-49-1265" to "P-49-1268", "P-49-1270", "P-49-1272" to "P-49-1274", "P-49-1276", "P-49-1277", "P-49-1279" to "P-49-1283", "P-49-1285", "P-49-1287", "P-49-1288", "P-49-1292" to "P-49-1294", "P-49-1296" to "P-49-1301", "P-49-1303" to "P-49-1306", "P-49-1308" to "P-49-1311", "P-49-1313" to "P-49-1316", "P-49-1335" to "P-49-1385", "P-49-1388", "P-49-1401" to "P-49-1437", "P-49-1454" to "P-49-1499", "P-49-1513" to "P-49-1548", "P-49-1564" to "P-49-1613" and "P-49-1620" to "P-49-1634", for not being found in the records of the case. 47 AScHCD In the same Resolution, the First Division directed Court-commissioned ICPA Mora to submit a soft copy of the ICPA Report and the corresponding annexes within five (5) days from receipt thereof. On 18 September 2018, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion, praying, among others, for the First Division to reconsider the denial of the foregoing exhibits and that the same be admitted as part of the evidence for petitioner. 48 In the meantime, the Court issued an Order dated 26 September 2018, 49 transferring the instant case to the Second Division. 50 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION On 17 October 2018, petitioner filed another Omnibus Motion, 51 praying for the Second Division to: (1) direct the ICPA to submit the soft copy of the ICPA Report and the exhibits and documents referenced therein, including the denied exhibits; (2) grant the ICPA a period of thirty (30) days from 18 October 2018 within which to submit the said soft copy; and, (3) allow the ICPA to view and copy the ICPA Report and the exhibits and documents previously submitted to the Court. Per Records Verification dated 20 December 2018, respondent failed to file a comment on petitioner's Omnibus Motions. The Court then granted petitioner's 17 October 2018 Omnibus Motion before resolving the admissibility of petitioner's previously denied exhibits. 52 On 25 March 2019, petitioner filed a Manifestation/Motion, 53 asking the Second Division to issue a subpoena duces tecum against ICPA Mora for him to submit the soft copy of his ICPA Report, including the annexes, and the soft copies of the denied exhibits (which were included in his report). In the Resolution dated 08 April 2019, 54 the Court granted petitioner's Manifestation/Motion, ordering ICPA Mora to appear before the Court and submit the soft copy of his ICPA Report, including annexes, and the soft copies of the denied exhibits during the hearing set on 08 May 2019. During the 08 May 2019 Hearing, 55 ICPA Mora appeared before the Court and submitted two (2) USBs marked as Exhibits "P-50-A" and "P-50-B". Respondent was given a period of five (5) days or until 13 May 2019 to file his additional comment on petitioner's FOE which he was only able to file on 14 May 2019. 56 In the Resolution dated 19 July 2019, 57 the Court admitted some of petitioner's exhibits, particularly those that the ICPA were submitted but still denied the following: (1) Exhibits "P-18", "P-19", "P-20", "P-21", "P-22", "P-23", "P-24" and "P-48 series", for not being specifically identified by the ICPA; 58 (2) Exhibits "P-31", "P-31-A" and "P-31-B", for failure to present the originals for comparison; 59 and, (3) Exhibits "P-49-705", "P-49-798", "P-49-878", "P-49-991", "P-49-1015", "P-49-1016", "P-49-1050", "P-49-1107", "P-49-1270", "P-49-1287", "P-49-1288", and "P-49-1583", for not being found in the records. 60 At the hearing held on 22 July 2019, 61 respondent presented his lone witness, Revenue Officer Olivia Sison (RO Sison) , who testified on direct examination by way of her Judicial Affidavit. 62 RO Sison holds the position of RO III. In line with her duty and pursuant to the LOA dated 01 July 2009, she conducted an investigation of petitioner's books of accounts for all internal revenue taxes for TY 2008. 63 She recommended the issuance of the PAN, 64 the FLD, 65 the FDDA 66 and that the assessments contained in the FDDA be reinstated in the Final Decision. 67 During cross-examination, RO Sison testified that: (1) petitioner requested for the execution of the waivers; (2) a Secretary's Certificate was attached to the submission of the waivers; and, (3) petitioner's CFO, Niro, executed all the waivers. On 29 July 2019, respondent filed his FOE, consisting of Exhibits "R-1" to "R-19", inclusive of sub-markings. 68 On the other hand, petitioner filed on 05 August 2019, a Tender of Excluded Evidence 69 and later, on 19 August 2019, a Comment and/or Opposition 70 to respondent's FOE. AcICHD In the Resolution dated 10 October 2019, 71 the Second Division admitted all of respondent's evidence and noted petitioner's Tender of Excluded Evidence. In the same Resolution, the Second Division directed both parties to file their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. Petitioner filed its Memorandum on 16 December 2019; 72 while respondent filed his Memorandum on 15 January 2020. 73 In the Resolution dated 22 January 2020, 74 the case was submitted for decision. ISSUE As the parties so stipulated, 75 the main issue for this Court's determination is WHETHER PETITIONER TRANSNATIONAL PLANS, INC. IS LIABLE TO PAY DEFICIENCY VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2008 IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF P29,009,628.15, AS WELL AS DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY INTERESTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 248 AND 249 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED. In determining the foregoing issue, the Court shall look into the following sub-issues: I. WHETHER THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PETITIONER TRANSNATIONAL PLANS, INC. ARE NULL AND VOID. caITAC II. WHETHER THE PERIOD TO ASSESS PETITIONER TRANSNATIONAL PLANS, INC. HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED. III. WHETHER THE TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT). IV. WHETHER PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NON-RESIDENTS SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT). V. WHETHER THE RELATED PARTIES ACCOUNT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE COLLECTION. VI. WHETHER OTHER INCOME WAS INCLUDED IN THE VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) RETURNS. ARGUMENTS In support of the instant petition, petitioner insists that the assessment should be declared null and void for lack of factual and legal bases and that prescription has already set in (with respect to its alleged deficiency VAT given the invalidity of the waivers). Assuming without conceding that the waivers are valid despite their infirmities, petitioner argues that the deficiency VAT assessment should still be cancelled considering that its trust fund contributions should not have been subjected to VAT as these are not income and thus should be excluded from gross receipts. Petitioner further contends that the premium collections from seamen and seafarers should not be subjected to VAT since they are non-residents. Likewise, the "Related Parties Account" should not be subjected to VAT as petitioner is not a lending investor. Lastly, "Other Income" has already been included in the amount declared as VATable sales in petitioner's VAT returns. Respondent, on the other hand, counters that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case for petitioner's failure to file the instant Petition for Review within the period allowed by law and the rules. Additionally, respondent claims that his right to assess petitioner for deficiency VAT has not prescribed as duly executed waivers extended the original three-year prescriptive period. And contrary to petitioner's claim, the assessment was duly supported in fact and in law. RULING OF THE COURT Before the Court proceeds to address the above issues, it deems propitious to first determine the timeliness of petitioner's administrative and judicial appeals as this is determinative of this Court's jurisdiction. Respondent posits that since petitioner received the FDDA, which denied its administrative protest on 24 September 2014, it had only until 24 October 2014 within which to file a Petition for Review before this Court. Considering that the instant Petition for Review was only filed on 14 March 2016, the same was filed out of time. ICHDca We disagree. It is well-settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period pursuant to the relevant provisions of the law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and non-compliance with these legal requirements is fatal to a party's cause. 76 The law is clear on the period to appeal before this Court if a decision on the protest is denied in whole or in part by the CIR. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 228. Protesting of Assessment . When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however , That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: xxx xxx xxx The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part , or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision , or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable . 77 xxx xxx xxx The aforequoted Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is implemented by Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99, 78 as amended by RR 18-2013, 79 issued on 28 November 2013. Relevant portions of Section 3.1.4 of RR 18-2013 are quoted below, as follows: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3.1.4 Disputed Assessment . xxx xxx xxx If the protest is denied, in whole or in part, by the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the taxpayer may either : (i) appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision; or (ii) elevate his protest through request for reconsideration to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the said decision . No request for reinvestigation shall be allowed in administrative appeal and only issues raised in the decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative shall be entertained by the Commissioner. ASEcHI xxx xxx xxx If the protest or administrative appeal is not acted upon by the Commissioner within one hundred eighty (180) days counted from the date of filing of the protest, the taxpayer may either : (i) appeal to the CTA within thirty (30) days from after the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; or (ii) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a copy of such decision . 80 xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing provisions, when a taxpayer's protest is denied by respondent's duly authorized representative, in whole or in part, the remedy for the taxpayer is either: (1) to appeal to this Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said representative's decision; or (2) to elevate his protest "through [a] Request for Reconsideration" to respondent within the same 30-day period. The latter remedy is referred to as an "administrative appeal." In case the respondent fails to act on the administrative appeal within 180 days from the filing of the protest, the concerned taxpayer may either: (1) appeal to this Court within 30 days from after the expiration of the said 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of respondent on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to this Court within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. In this case, it is undisputed that petitioner filed its Protest against the FLD, which was issued by then OIC-ACIR Misajon, on 12 March 2014. On 24 September 2014, petitioner received the FDDA dated 22 September 2014, which was issued by then OIC-ACIR Valeroso, denying petitioner's Protest. Within 30 days from such date of receipt or on 24 October 2014, petitioner filed its Request for Reconsideration with the office of then Commissioner Henares. Subsequently on 11 February 2016, petitioner received the Final Decision which then Commissioner Henares herself issued, denying petitioner's Request for Reconsideration. Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on 14 March 2016. As already shown, when respondent's duly authorized representative (OIC-ACIR Valeroso) denied petitioner's protest through the FDDA dated 22 September 2014, petitioner chose the administrative appeal provided under the aforesaid regulations. Specifically, it elevated its protest, through a Request for Reconsideration, to respondent within 30 days from receipt thereof. Petitioner awaited respondent's decision and the latter denied such Request for Reconsideration in the 11 February 2016 Final Decision, petitioner then filed the instant Petition for Review within 30 days from its receipt thereof. 81 Considering that petitioner's actions are consistent with the remedies provided under the aforequoted Section 3.1.4 of RR 12-99, as amended by RR 18-2013, the instant Petition for Review was timely filed. Thus, this Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain the same. ITAaHc Nevertheless, citing the case of Fishwealth Canning Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 82 (Fishwealth) , respondent avers that a motion for reconsideration (MR) of the denial of the administrative protest does not toll the 30-day period to appeal to this Court. Respondent is clearly in error. His erroneous averment lies on the supposition that, in Fishwealth , the 30-day mandatory appeal period was held to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the decision of respondent's duly authorized representative. To be clear, the ruling in Fishwealth is that the reckoning of the said period is from the date of the taxpayer's receipt of respondent's decision or from the expiration of the 180-day period due to respondent's inaction. In Fishwealth , the Supreme Court ruled, as follows: xxx xxx xxx In the case at bar, petitioner's administrative protest was denied by Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated August 2, 2005 issued by respondent and which petitioner received on August 4, 2005 . Under the above-quoted Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code, petitioner had 30 days to appeal respondent's denial of its protest to the CTA . Since petitioner received the denial of its administrative protest on August 4, 2005, it had until September 3, 2005 to file a petition for review before the CTA Division . It filed one, however, on October 20, 2005, hence, it was filed out of time. For a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the administrative protest does not toll the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA . 83 xxx xxx xxx It is likewise clear from the foregoing pronouncement that the reckoning of the same 30-day mandatory period to appeal is from respondent's decision, ruling, or inaction. Relative thereto, it must be emphasized that the ruling in Fishwealth that an MR does not toll the said 30-day period to appeal to this Court, clearly refers to the MR of respondent's "denial of the administrative protest." It does not, in any way, pertain to the denial of the administrative protest by the duly authorized representative of respondent. Thus, even when petitioner filed before respondent a Request for Reconsideration of OIC-ACIR Valeroso's FDDA dated 22 September 2014, the same is of no moment. After all, as already pointed out, the filing of such Request for Reconsideration is consistent and in accordance with the aforequoted Section 3.1.4 of RR 12-99, as amended by RR 18-2013. Respondent thus cannot validly invoke the ruling in Fishwealth to support its stance that the instant Petition for Review was not timely filed. With this, the Court could only find that it has jurisdiction over the case. We shall now proceed to resolve the other raised issues, in seriatim . I. THE SUBJECT DEFICIENCY VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT) ASSESSMENT IS VALID AS PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED DUE PROCESS. Petitioner asserts that the subject deficiency VAT assessment is void as it was done without due process. In this regard, petitioner claims that respondent and his representative failed to consider the merits of its contentions against the alleged deficiency VAT considering that the FLD is an exact duplicate of the PAN. CHTAIc Petitioner further alleges that the deficiency VAT assessment had no legal or factual bases. In particular, as regards the "Other Income/Adjustments" indicated in the Details of Discrepancies, petitioner claims that no clear explanation was provided as to why there existed "Other Income" in the amount of P5,062,538.00 and as to the nature thereof ( i.e. , whether it could be considered income or gross receipts). Petitioner further asserts that respondent failed to attach a schedule and description that explains the computation and the basis of the assessment. According to petitioner, such lack of factual basis to sustain the assessment is a violation not only of the mandate of Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, that the taxpayer "shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made," but a disservice contrary to the cardinal rule of due process ought to be accorded every taxpayer. Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that both procedural and substantive due process were observed in issuing the subject assessment. Contrary to petitioner's claim, respondent insists that the PAN with attached Details of Discrepancies, 84 FLD with attached Details of Discrepancies 85 and FDDA with attached Details of Discrepancies 86 indicated not only the deficiency tax involved and interest due thereon, but also sufficiently stated the facts, the law, rules and regulations on which the assessment has been based. Anent petitioner's allegation that respondent failed to attach a schedule and description which explains the computation and basis of the assessment, respondent posits that the assessment need not be a full narration of the facts and the law on which the assessment was based. We rule in favor of respondent. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by RR 12-99, provides certain procedures to ensure that the right of the taxpayer to procedural due process is observed in tax assessments, thus: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 228. Protesting of Assessment . When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however , That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: cHDAIS xxx xxx xxx The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. xxx xxx xxx Section 3 of RR 12-99 prescribes the due process requirement for the four (4) stages of the assessment process: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment . 3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment: 3.1.1 Notice for informal conference . The Revenue Officer who audited the taxpayer's records shall, among others, state in his report whether or not the taxpayer agrees with his findings that the taxpayer is liable for deficiency tax or taxes. If the taxpayer is not amenable, based on the said Officer's submitted report of investigation, the taxpayer shall be informed, in writing , by the Revenue District Office or by the Special Investigation Division, as the case may be (in the case Revenue Regional Offices) or by the Chief of Division concerned (in the case of the BIR National Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the taxpayer's payment of his internal revenue taxes, for the purpose of "Informal Conference," in order to afford the taxpayer with an opportunity to present his side of the case . If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the notice for informal conference, he shall be considered in default , in which case, the Revenue District Officer or the Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of Division in the National Office, as the case may be, shall endorse the case with the least possible delay to the Assessment Division of the Revenue Regional Office or to the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, if warranted. 3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) . If after review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based . . . If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN , he shall be considered in default , in which case, a formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be caused to be issued by the said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties. ISHCcT xxx xxx xxx 3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice . The formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative. The letter of demand calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the assessment is based, otherwise, the formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be void . . . 3.1.5 Disputed Assessment . The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof . . . . xxx xxx xxx The taxpayer shall submit the required documents in support of his protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest, otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. The phrase "submit the required documents" includes submission or presentation of the pertinent documents for scrutiny and evaluation by the Revenue Officer conducting the audit. The said Revenue Officer shall state this fact in his report of investigation. If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable. xxx xxx xxx 3.1.6 Administrative Decision on a Disputed Assessment . The decision of the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall (a) state the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which such decision is based, otherwise, the decision shall be void . . . in which case, the same shall not be considered a decision on a disputed assessment; and (b) that the same is his final decision . 87 xxx xxx xxx As clearly established in the aforecited provisions, the taxpayer should be provided with adequate written notice of its tax liability. Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, explicitly requires that the taxpayer be informed in writing of the law and of the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Section 3.1.2 of RR 12-99 required the PAN to show in detail the facts and law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based. Furthermore, Section 3.1.4 of RR 12-99 requires that the FLD must state the facts and law on which it is based; otherwise, the FLD shall be void. Finally, Section 3.1.6 specifically requires that the decision of the Commissioner or of his or her duly authorized representative on a disputed assessment shall state the facts and law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the decision is based. Failure to do so would invalidate the FDDA. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz Philippines Corporation 88 (Liquigaz) , the Supreme Court has held that the use of the word "shall" in Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and in RR 12-99 indicates that the requirement of informing the taxpayer of the legal and factual bases of the assessment and the decision made against him or her is mandatory. This is an essential requirement of due process and it applies to the PAN, FLD, and the FDDA. On the other hand, the taxpayer is explicitly given the opportunity to explain or present his or her side throughout the process, from tax investigation through tax assessment. Under Section 3.1.1 of RR 12-99, the taxpayer is given 15 days from receipt of the NIC to respond; otherwise, he or she will be considered in default and the case will be referred to the Assessment Division for appropriate review and issuance of deficiency tax assessment, if warranted. Again, under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 3.1.2 of RR 12-99, the taxpayer is required to respond within 15 days from receipt of the PAN; otherwise, the taxpayer will be considered in default and the FLD will be issued. After receipt of the FDDA, the taxpayer is given 30 days to file a protest, and subsequently, to appeal his or her protest to this Court. CAacTH Petitioner avers that it was not afforded full opportunity to be heard when Commissioner Henares and her representatives failed to consider the merits of its contentions against the alleged deficiency VAT assessment. We disagree. The records show that petitioner was sufficiently apprised of the legal and factual bases of the deficiency VAT assessment issued against it in substantial compliance with Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Even as the Details of Discrepancies attached to the PAN, FLD and FDDA did not contain a detailed explanation on the amount of premiums still subject to VAT and respondent failed to address each of petitioner's arguments (in its Reply to the PAN and Protest against the FLD), petitioner still could not claim that it had no way of knowing what items did respondent consider in arriving at the deficiency VAT assessment. As shown in the records, those items and the corresponding amounts thereof were lifted from petitioner's own 2008 Audited Financial Statements (AFS) . 89 In arriving at the amount of premiums still subject to VAT ( i.e. , P113,835,016.33, as indicated in Schedule 1 of the Details of Discrepancies), the BIR determined the "should be" amount of VATable sales by obtaining the net movement of "Accounts Receivable" (Trade, Others and Related Parties Accounts) and adding thereto the amount of income from premiums and the aggregate amount of "Other Income" (the components of which can be found in the notes to the 2008 AFS, except for the P3,489.98 undeclared purchases and the P24,010.43 undeclared sales). With respect to petitioner's claim that respondent did not provide an explanation on why there existed "Other Income" in the amount of P5,062,538.00, the Court could not subscribe to petitioner's posturing as such amount was reflected in the notes to the 2008 AFS and vaguely described as "Other Income." It is noteworthy that respondent would not have known what comprised "Other Income" since even the notes to the 2008 AFS is silent as to the nature thereof. If anything, it is petitioner that could explain the existence and nature of "Other Income" (which respondent included under "Other Income/Adjustments" in determining the "should be" amount of VATable sales). Regrettably, instead of explaining to respondent what constituted "Other Income" that has been subjected to VAT, petitioner merely claimed that the BIR erroneously concluded that "Other Income" was not declared in the VAT returns. This, petitioner claims, the BIR did by showing that the amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns ( i.e. , P39,383,577.08) is considerably higher than the amount of premiums collected subject to VAT [ i.e. , P22,907,051.00, which is the difference between total revenues per Income Tax Return (ITR) of P132,204,768.00 and total amount of trust fund contributions of P109,297,717.00]. Petitioner thus argues that, as the amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns is higher than the amount of premiums collected subject to VAT by the amount of P16,476,526.08, "Other Income/Adjustments" amounting to P11,487,602.41, which respondent allegedly erroneously considered as still subject to VAT, was already declared in its VAT returns. IAETDc A perusal of the PAN with attached Details of Discrepancies, 90 FLD with attached Details of Discrepancies 91 and FDDA with attached Details of Discrepancies 92 would reveal that respondent's computation yielded the same amount of deficiency VAT, exclusive of interest and compromise penalty. The total amount indicated in the FDDA only increased to P29,009,628.15 an account of additional interest accrued from 31 March 2014 to 31 August 2014. As expressly stated in the FDDA and as implied from the consistent computation of the amount of deficiency VAT in the PAN and FLD, it is respondent's position that the taxable base of pre-need companies for VAT purposes shall be the gross receipts without any deduction, pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 74-07. 93 As such, petitioner failed to convince respondent that it had no deficiency VAT and that it even had a VAT overpayment. Also, as respondent aptly explained, the computation of deficiency VAT indicated in the FLD is exactly the same as that in the PAN because petitioner failed to raise meritorious arguments in its Reply to the PAN. Likewise, in its Protest against the FLD, petitioner substantially reiterated its arguments in its Reply to the PAN which, as mentioned, respondent found to be unmeritorious. In Sony Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 94 (Sony) , this Court held that the requirement of stating the law and the facts upon which the assessment is made is deemed complied with when petitioner was able to refute the revenue examiner's findings, thus: xxx xxx xxx The fact that petitioner knew (and even admitted) of the previous factual and legal bases appearing in the Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand is sufficient compliance with Section 228. Whatever other reasons raised (or might be raised) during the trial will be considered as a defense in support of the deficiency assessment. It bears stressing that the purpose of Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 in requiring that "(t)he taxpayer be informed of the law and facts on which assessment is made" is to give the taxpayer the opportunity to refute the findings of the examiner and give a more accurate and detailed explanation regarding the assessment(s) . The purpose of the said law having been served in the instant case, Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 is deemed to have been complied with. Therefore, the assessment is not null and void. xxx xxx xxx Considering the foregoing circumstances, particularly that petitioner was able to refute the examiner's findings and give a more detailed explanation regarding the assessment and that it ought to know the existence and nature of "Other Income," We see no reason to depart from the aforementioned ruling. The assailed deficiency VAT assessment substantially complied with the requirement of Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; hence, the same is valid and binding upon petitioner, II. THE SUBJECT WAIVERS ARE VALID AND THUS EXTENDED THE ORIGINAL THREE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO ASSESS. Petitioner contends that there are infirmities in the subject waivers which rendered the same void. As a consequence thereof, the original three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 95 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, was not extended. Petitioner points out the following defects in the subject waivers: (1) the officer who executed all the waivers was not duly authorized by petitioner's Board of Directors through a Board Resolution; (2) the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Waivers were not signed by the proper BIR official pursuant to RDAO 05-01; (3) the 3rd waiver was not signed and accepted by the BIR and bears no date of the BIR's acceptance; and, (4) the 5th waiver was not notarized while the 1st, 4th and 6th waivers were not duly notarized. DcHSEa Likewise, considering that the subject waivers were defective, petitioner claims that the period to assess the deficiency VAT for TY 2008 has already prescribed because the FLD was issued only on 12 March 2014 (on which date more than three (3) years has already lapsed from the date of filing of petitioner's 2008 VAT returns). Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, mandates that internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three (3) years reckoned from the period fixed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of filing, whichever comes later, to wit: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection . Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided , That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day. xxx xxx xxx In relation thereto, Section 114 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides the time for filing of the quarterly VAT return, thus: SaCIDT xxx xxx xxx Sec. 114. Return and Payment of Value-Added Tax . (A) In General . Every person liable to pay the value-added tax imposed under this Title shall file a quarterly return of the amount of his gross sales or receipts within twenty-five (25) days following the close of each taxable quarter prescribed for each taxpayer: Provided, however , That VAT-registered persons shall pay the value-added tax on a monthly basis. xxx xxx xxx Applying the foregoing, the dates pertinent to the subject deficiency VAT assessment for TY 2008 are as follows: Period Exhibit No. Last day to file Date of filing Last day to assess Date of receipt of FLD 1st Quarter of 2008 "P-25" 96 25 April 2008 22 April 2008 25 April 2011 14 March 2014 2nd Quarter of 2008 "P-26" 97 25 July 2008 24 July 2008 25 July 2011 14 March 2014 3rd Quarter of 2008 "P-27" 98 25 October 2008 23 October 2008 25 October 2011 14 March 2014 4th Quarter of 2008 "P-28" 99 25 January 2009 23 January 2009 25 January 2012 14 March 2014 Based on the above table, the deficiency VAT assessment for TY 2008 under the FLD dated 12 March 2014 100 was issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period mandated in Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. However, the three-year prescriptive period may be extended by agreement of the parties, pursuant to Section 222 (b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes . xxx xxx xxx (b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the assessment of the tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreement made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon. xxx xxx xxx Corollary thereto, RMO 20-90, which was issued on 04 April 1990, and Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) No. 05-01, which was issued on 02 August 2001, lay down the following procedures for the proper execution of the waiver: xxx xxx xxx 1. The waiver must be in the proper form prescribed by RMO 20-90. The phrase "but not after __ 19 ___," which indicates the expiry date of the period agreed upon to assess/collect the tax after the regular three-year period of prescription, should be filled up. 2. The waiver must be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized representative. In the case of a corporation, the waiver must be signed by any of its responsible officials. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, such delegation should be in writing and duly notarized. cHECAS 3. The waiver should be duly notarized. 4. The CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must sign the waiver indicating that the BIR has accepted and agreed to the waiver. The date of such acceptance by the BIR should be indicated. However, before signing the waiver, the CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must make sure that the waiver is in the prescribed form, duly notarized, and executed by the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative. 5. Both the date of execution by the taxpayer and date of acceptance by the Bureau should be before the expiration of the period of prescription or before the lapse of the period agreed upon in case a subsequent agreement is executed. 6. The waiver must be executed in three copies, the original copy to be attached to the docket of the case, the second copy for the taxpayer and the third copy for the Office accepting the waiver. The fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his/her file copy must be indicated in the original copy to show that the taxpayer was notified of the acceptance of the BIR and the perfection of the agreement. 101 xxx xxx xxx In Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 102 (Philippine Journalists) , the Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the requirements provided in RMO 20-90, in the following manner: xxx xxx xxx The NIRC, under Sections 203 and 222, provides for a statute of limitations on the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes in order to safeguard the interest of the taxpayer against unreasonable investigation. Unreasonable investigation contemplates cases where the period for assessment extends indefinitely because this deprives the taxpayer of the assurance that it will no longer be subjected to further investigation for taxes after the expiration of a reasonable period of time . . . xxx xxx xxx RMO No. 20-90 implements these provisions of the NIRC relating to the period of prescription for the assessment and collection of taxes. A cursory reading of the Order supports petitioner's argument that the RMO must be strictly followed, . . . xxx xxx xxx Petitioner and respondent executed six (6) waivers covering petitioner's internal revenue taxes for TY 2008, with the following details: Waiver Exhibit No. Date of Execution by Petitioner Date of Acceptance by the BIR Period Extended Until 1st Waiver "P-12" 103 24 February 2011 25 February 2011 30 September 2011 2nd Waiver "P-13" 104 06 September 2011 11 September 2011 30 June 2012 3rd Waiver "P-14" 105 16 May 2012 22 May 2012 31 December 2012 4th Waiver "P-15" 106 16 November 2012 27 November 2012 30 June 2013 5th Waiver "P-16" 107 22 April 2013 07 May 2013 31 December 2013 6th Waiver "P-17" 108 15 November 2013 20 November 2013 30 June 2014 The records disclose and petitioner has pointed out that all six (6) waivers are not supported by a notarized Board Resolution authorizing petitioner's representative to sign on its behalf. Under RMO 20-90, if the taxpayer issuing a waiver is a corporation, the waiver may be signed by any of its responsible officials. A notarized Board Resolution is necessary only when the authority is delegated to a representative who is not a responsible official. AHDacC Here, the subject waivers were signed by petitioner's CFO, Niro. Clearly, as CFO, Niro is a responsible officer of the corporation. A notarized Board Resolution from the Board of Directors is neither required nor necessary to give authority to Niro to execute the waivers as her authority to do so is inherent in her position as petitioner's CFO. However, as regards petitioner's contention that the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th waivers are void for not having been signed by the authorized BIR official, We disagree. A perusal of the six (6) waivers would reveal that all of them were signed by either the ACIR or the OIC-ACIR, as follows: Waiver Exhibit No. Signing Officer Date Signed by the Signing Officer Date Received by Petitioner 1st Waiver "R-4" 109 ACIR Zenaida G. Garcia 25 February 2011 18 March 2011 2nd Waiver "R-5" 110 OIC-ACIR Misajon 11 September 2011 11 October 2011 3rd Waiver "R-6" 111 OIC-ACIR Misajon 22 May 2012 Not indicated 4th Waiver "R-7" 112 OIC-ACIR Misajon 27 November 2012 07 December 2012 5th Waiver "R-8" 113 OIC-ACIR Misajon 07 May 2013 08 May 2013 6th Waiver "R-10" 114 OIC-ACIR Misajon 20 November 2013 12 December 2013 An ACIR or OIC-ACIR is authorized to sign a waiver under RDAO 05-01 on behalf of the CIR, viz. : xxx xxx xxx I. Revenue Officials Authorized to Sign the Waiver The following revenue officials are authorized to sign and accept the Waiver of the Defense of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations (Annex A) prescribed in Sections 203, 222 and other related provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997: A. For National Office cases Designated Revenue Official xxx xxx xxx 2. ACIR, Large Taxpayers Service For large taxpayers cases other than those cases falling under Subsection B hereof xxx xxx xxx Based on RDAO 05-01, for national cases, an ACIR is authorized to sign and accept a waiver. Here, the waivers were signed and accepted by ACIR Garcia (for the 1st waiver) and OIC-ACIR Misajon (for the 2nd to 6th waivers). Evidently, under the aforequoted RDAO 005-01, an ACIR or OIC-ACIR has the authority to sign and accept the subject waivers. In this regard, even if RDAO 05-01 does not expressly mention the OIC-ACIR as authorized to sign the waiver, logic dictates that an OIC-ACIR is regarded as, for all intents and purposes, the ACIR and is authorized to discharge the functions of an ACIR. As regards petitioner's contention that the 3rd waiver was not signed and accepted by the BIR, and bears no date of the BIR's acceptance, an examination of respondent's version of the 3rd waiver ( i.e. , Exhibit "R-6") shows that it was signed and accepted by OIC-ACIR Misajon on 22 May 2012. Moreover, respondent's version thereof also bears the handwritten name and signature of Anciado, petitioner's Chief Accountant, who received the said waiver. Unfortunately for petitioner, it failed to raise an issue on the validity of respondent's version as against its version of the 3rd waiver. IDSEAH With respect to the 5th waiver being not notarized, an examination of said waiver reveals the contrary. Both petitioner's and respondent's versions of the 5th waiver yield that such was notarized on 22 April 2013. However, it was not duly notarized because the community tax certificate (CTC) number or competent evidence of identity of the signatory was not indicated in the notarial certificate. Lastly, as regards petitioner's allegation that the 1st, 4th and 6th waivers were not duly notarized, an examination of the said waivers shows that they were not duly notarized as the notarial certificate likewise does not indicate the CTC or competent evidence of identity of the signatory. In accepting the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th waivers despite the unfilled spaces in reference to the competent evidence of identity (which renders the notarization incomplete), the BIR defied its own rules and was remiss in performing its functions with respect to the said waivers. Under RDAO 05-01, it is the duty of the authorized revenue official to ensure that the waiver is duly accomplished and signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative before affixing his signature to signify acceptance of the same. Furthermore, it mandates that the waiver should not be accepted by the concerned BIR office and official unless duly notarized. Here, the BIR accepted the waivers despite the same having been notarized without the presentation of the requisite identity documents, said portion having been left blank in the subject waivers. Thus, the BIR failed to comply with its duty to refuse acceptance of the waiver when it is not duly notarized. Nevertheless, even assuming for the sake of argument that the incomplete notarization rendered the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th waivers invalid, the same cannot serve to excuse petitioner as it is already estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc. (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.) 115 (Next Mobile) , the Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of estoppel and upheld the waivers when both the taxpayer and the BIR were in pari delicto . The taxpayer's act of impugning its waivers after benefitting from them was considered an act of bad faith: xxx xxx xxx In this case, respondent, after deliberately executing defective waivers, raised the very same deficiencies it caused to avoid the tax liability determined by the BIR during the extended assessment period. It must be remembered that by virtue of these Waivers, respondent was given the opportunity to gather and submit documents to substantiate its claims before the CIR during investigation. It was able to postpone the payment of taxes, as well as contest and negotiate the assessment against it. Yet, after enjoying these benefits, respondent challenged the validity of the Waivers when the consequences thereof were not in its favor. In other words, respondent's act of impugning these Waivers after benefiting therefrom and allowing petitioner to rely on the same is an act of bad faith. xxx xxx xxx Petitioner's conduct shows its implied admission of the validity of the waivers. First , respondent never raised the invalidity of the waivers at the earliest opportunity, either in its Reply to the PAN, Protest against the FLD, or Request for Reconsideration. Petitioner thus impliedly recognized the waivers' validity and its representative's authority to execute them. Petitioner only raised the issue of these waivers validity in the instant Petition for Review filed with this Court. aCIHcD Second , as respondent pointed out, it is unfair to allow petitioner to impugn the validity of the waivers when it executed the said waivers six (6) times. If petitioner believed that the waivers were invalid, it should have at least questioned the validity of the first five (5) waivers before proceeding to execute the 6th waiver. Under the circumstances, petitioner had acquiesced on the validity of such waivers. Third , petitioner benefited from the waivers' execution since, by their execution, it was allowed more time to gather and submit documents to substantiate its claims, postpone the payment of taxes, and contest and negotiate the BIR's assessment against it. Clearly, both petitioner and respondent were aware of the infirmities of the waivers, yet they continued their dealings with each other on the strength of such waivers. Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the parties are in pari delicto and that petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers. Applying Next Mobile , the waivers are considered valid and extended the period of assessment. We will now proceed to discuss the merits of the deficiency VAT assessment. I. THE TRUST FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT). Petitioner argues that the trust fund contributions should be excluded from VATable gross receipts of pre-need companies. As such, VAT should be imposed only on the premiums collected. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the taxable base of pre-need companies for VAT purposes shall be the gross receipts without any deduction pursuant to RMC 74-07. 116 We agree with respondent. RR 16-05, 117 which took effect on 01 November 2005, defines a pre-need company and provides the basis for the computation of its VATable gross receipts, as follows: xxx xxx xxx SECTION 4.108-3. Definitions and Specific Rules on Selected Services . xxx xxx xxx (j) Pre-need Companies are corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and authorized/licensed to sell or offer for sale pre-need plans, whether a single plan or multi-plan. They are engaged in business as seller of services providing services to plan holders by managing the funds provided by them and making payments at the time of need or maturity of the contract. As service providers, the compensation for their services is the premiums or payments received from the plan holders. xxx xxx xxx SECTION 4.108-4. Definitions of Gross Receipts . 'Gross receipts' refers to the total amount of money or its equivalent representing the contract price, compensation, service fee, rental or royalty, including the amount charged for materials supplied with the services and deposits applied as payments for services rendered and advance payments actually or constructively received during the taxable period for the services performed or to be performed for another person, excluding VAT. cHaCAS xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing provisions, the taxable base of pre-need companies for VAT purposes should be the entire receipts (including amounts collected for the trust fund contributions of planholders) without any deduction except VAT. Notwithstanding that the foregoing provisions were amended under RR 04-07, 118 which became effective on 07 April 2007, the trust fund contributions remained VATable, to wit: xxx xxx xxx SECTION 11. Gross Receipts . Sec. 4.108-4 of RR No. 16-2005 is hereby amended to read as follows: SEC. 4.108-4. Definition of Gross Receipts . 'Gross receipts' refers to the total amount of money or its equivalent representing the contract price, compensation, service fee, rental or royalty, including the amount charged for materials supplied with the services and deposits applied as payments for services rendered and advance payments actually or constructively received during the taxable period for the services performed or to be performed for another person, excluding the VAT, except those amounts earmarked for payment to unrelated third (3rd) party or received as reimbursement for advance payment on behalf of another which do not redound to the benefit of the payor. A payment is a payment to a third (3rd) party if the same is made to settle an obligation of another person, e.g. , customer or client, to the said third party, which obligation is evidenced by the sales invoice/official receipt issued by said third party to the obligor/debtor ( e.g. , customer or client of the payor of the obligation). An advance payment is an advance payment on behalf of another if the same is paid to a third (3rd) party for a present or future obligation of said another party which obligation is evidenced by a sales invoice/official receipt issued by the obligee/creditor to the obligor/debtor ( i.e. , the aforementioned 'another party') for the sale of goods or services by the former to the latter. For this purpose 'unrelated party' shall not include taxpayer's employees, partners, affiliates (parent, subsidiary and other related companies), relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth (4th) civil degree, and trust fund where the taxpayer is the trustor , trustee or beneficiary, even if covered by an agreement to the contrary. 119 DACcIH xxx xxx xxx On 12 November 2007, the BIR issued RMC 74-07 emphasizing that: xxx xxx xxx It is hereby clarified that the taxable base of Pre-need Companies for VAT purposes shall be the gross receipts without any deduction . Such contribution is similar or equated to the recorded 'Reserve' in the case of insurance companies, whether life or non-life. Reserve is not deductible, for purposes of determining the taxable gross direct premium/writing for non-life insurance companies as well as life insurance companies. The said tax treatments have already been clarified and reiterated under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-2005, as amended. 120 xxx xxx xxx However, in BIR Ruling No. DA-027-06 dated 31 January 2006, 121 then Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Jose Mario Bunag (Commissioner Bunag) , clarified to the Philippine Federation of Pre-Need Companies, Inc., to which petitioner is a member, that the gross receipts of a pre-need company should be the net of actual trust fund contributions for VAT purposes. Since petitioner relied in good faith on BIR Ruling No. DA-027-06, the amounts it collected from planholders which were set aside for trust fund contributions shall be excluded from petitioner's VATable gross receipts, following the rationalization of the Supreme Court En Banc in the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, Taganito Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , and Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 122 where it was held that under Section 246 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, taxpayers may rely upon a rule or ruling issued by the Commissioner from the time the rule or ruling is issued up to its reversal by the Commissioner or the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, petitioner has to comply with the invoicing requirements as provided under Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, thus: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons . xxx xxx xxx (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: xxx xxx xxx (d) If the sale involves 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 breakdown 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 shown 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. 123 HSCATc xxx xxx xxx In the instant case, however, per independent examination, the trust fund contributions were not separately indicated in petitioner's VAT ORs as "NONVAT (Trust Fund)." Having failed to separately indicate in the ORs which portion pertains to the trust fund contributions, petitioner's total premium collections (including the trust fund contributions) for TY 2008 amounting to P132,204,768.26 are subject to VAT. II. PREMIUM COLLECTIONS FROM NON-RESIDENTS ARE SUBJECT TO VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT). Petitioner asserts that its main clients are seamen or seafarers who receive compensation for services rendered abroad as members of the complement of vessels engaged exclusively in international trade. These seamen or seafarers are considered overseas contract workers for all intents and purposes and classified as non-residents of the Philippines following Section 23 (C) 124 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Since petitioner's services rendered to the seamen or seafarers are services rendered to non-residents and paid for in acceptable foreign currency, the premium payments and the trust fund contributions coming from seamen or seafarers should not be subject to VAT since the services are "zero-rated" services under Section 108 (B) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Unfortunately, however, petitioner failed to adduce documentary evidence in support of its assertion. In fact, per examination of petitioner's ORs, the premium payments and the trust fund contributions coming from seamen or seafarers were not separately indicated as "zero-rated" services. For such lack of substantiation and compliance with the invoicing requirements under Section 113 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, We are constrained to rule that the subject premium collections from seamen or seafarers are likewise subject to VAT. III. COLLECTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DECREASE IN RECEIVABLE FROM RELATED PARTIES ARE SUBJECT TO VALUE-ADDED TAX (VAT). Petitioner claims that advances made to its related parties or affiliated companies, reported as "Due from related parties" in the 2008 AFS, are not part of its business as a pre-need company. Petitioner insists that collections attributed to the decrease in receivable from related parties ( i.e. , P22,463,592.00) does not represent taxable receipts or income of petitioner as a pre-need company, but merely repayment of advances made by petitioner to some of its sister companies. It further argues that VAT is only imposed on receipts and not on advances, hence, the said decrease in "Due from related parties" is not subject to VAT. We disagree with petitioner. Petitioner's notes to the 2008 AFS disclose: xxx xxx xxx b. Receivable from related parties (which are all under common control of [Transnational Diversified Corporation, petitioner's parent company]) consists of premium dues and advances to finance working capital requirements payable in equal monthly installments. IDTSEH Relationship 2008 2007 Transnational Diversified Corporation P25,570,940 P28,214,000 NYK-TDG Maritime Academy 4,639,300 2,437,000 Dolphin Ship Management, Inc. 1,659,365 26,659,365 Others 4,922,699 1,945,531 P36,792,304 P59,255,896 ========== ========== c. The Company grants interest-free advances to related parties. d. The Company shares costs with related parties to properly allocate common costs and expenses of the shared office. xxx xxx xxx The above suggests that the subject decrease in receivable from related parties pertains to reimbursements for costs and expenses advanced by petitioner. RMC 09-2006 125 provides the conditions that must be met for reimbursable expenses to be VAT-exempt: xxx xxx xxx In sum, reimbursable expenses and/or advanced payments shall not be subject to VAT on the part of the broker if the following conditions/procedures are complied with: 1. The reimbursable expenses and/or advanced payments, except those incurred for the benefit of the brokers, are receipted separately using NON-VAT Official Acknowledgement Receipts to be issued by the brokers to the Customers upon collection of the reimbursements or advances previously recorded as RECEIVABLE FOR CASH ADVANCES ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMERS, which recording was done upon payment, on behalf of customers, of the advances to the third-party service providers who issued official receipts in the name of the customers and not of the brokers ; 2. The third-party service providers to whom the advanced payments or reimbursable expenses of the customers have been paid by the brokers, shall issue receipts in the name of the Customers ; 3. The brokers shall record the reimbursable expenses of or the advanced payments on behalf of Customers under the account "RECEIVABLE FOR CASH ADVANCES ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMERS"; and 4. For liquidation purposes, the brokers shall attach the original copy of all said official receipts issued by the third-party service providers in the name of the customers to the NON-VAT official acknowledgement receipts of the brokers issued to their Customers upon payment by the latter of the reimbursable expenses. 126 xxx xxx xxx Based on the foregoing rules, third-party suppliers must issue a VAT OR under the name of the customers ( i.e. , related parties, as applied to herein case) since such reimbursable costs and expenses would ultimately redound to the benefit of said customers. In this case, petitioner failed to present any evidence (such as the NON-VAT official acknowledgement receipts issued by petitioner to its related parties, and the ORs issued by third-party suppliers in the name of petitioner's related parties) to prove compliance with the foregoing conditions in order for reimbursable expenses and/or advanced payments to be VAT-exempt. Thus, the deficiency VAT assessment on the decrease in receivable from related parties is upheld. SICDAa IV. OTHER INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE VALUE- ADDED TAX (VAT) RETURNS. As the records so yield, respondent treated as income subject to VAT the items enumerated under "Other Income/Adjustments," detailed as follows: Other Income/Adjustments Other Income P5,062,538.00 Commission Income 1,167,909.00 Processing Fee 594,516.00 Surcharged and Lapsed Plan 2,884,424.00 Miscellaneous Fee 1,750,715.00 Undeclared Purchases 3,489.98 Undeclared Sales 24,010.43 Total P11,487,602.41 ============ In challenging respondent's position, petitioner argues that the foregoing components of "Other Income" were already included in the amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns, as follows: Amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns P39,383,577.08 Revenue per ITR P132,204,768.00 Less: Trust Fund Contributions 109,297,717.00 Premiums collected subjected to VAT 22,907,051.00 (22,907,051.00) VAT applicable to Other Income P16,476,526.08 We are not convinced. As established earlier, the trust fund contributions are subject to VAT because petitioner failed to separately indicate the same in the ORs as "NONVAT (Trust Fund)." That being said, the amount declared as VATable sales per petitioner's 2008 VAT returns would be significantly understated and thus could not have possibly covered or included "Other Income." Notably, petitioner did not make any attempt to explain what consisted "Other Income" and the exact nature of the items included therein (the amounts of which were reflected in note 16 127 of the notes to the 2008 AFS, except for the P3,489.98 undeclared purchases and P24,010.43 undeclared sales). No documentary evidence was presented to support its assertion that said "Other Income" has been subjected to VAT. Moreover, contrary to petitioner's own assertion that the amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns included "Other Income"; petitioner, in its Protest against the FLD 128 and Request for Reconsideration of the FDDA, 129 it did not include "Other Income" in its enumeration of what forms part of its taxable collections or gross receipts, as follows: Trust Fund Contributions P109,927,717.00 [Add:] Premiums subject to VAT 22,907,051.00 Amount declared per ITR/AFS P132,834,768.00 [Add:] Changes in the A/R 8,896,223.00 Collections per assessment P143,730,991.00 130 It is well-established that "bare allegations which are not supported by any evidence, documentary or otherwise, sufficient to support a claim, fall short to satisfy the degree of proof needed." 131 Hence, the Court could not lend credence to petitioner's bare allegation that "Other Income" was included in the amount declared as VATable sales. DHIcET Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, and all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment unless proven otherwise. 132 The burden of proof is upon the complaining party to show clearly that the assessment is erroneous. Failure to present proof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial affirmance of said assessment. 133 Based on the foregoing, "Other Income" in the total amount of P11,487,602.41 was not included in the amount declared as VATable sales per VAT returns and thus was properly treated as an adjustment to arrive at the deficiency VAT. In fine, petitioner is liable to pay basic deficiency VAT in the amount of P13,711,241.38, computed as follows: Collection of Premiums P142,156,319.47 134 Add: Other Income/Adjustments Other Income P5,062,538.00 Commission Income 1,167,909.00 Processing Fee 594,516.00 Surcharges and Lapsed Plan 2,884,424.00 Miscellaneous Fee 1,750,715.00 Undeclared Purchases 3,489.98 Undeclared Sales 24,010.43 11,487,602.41 Total Receipts subject to VAT P153,643,921.88 Tax Rate 12% Output VAT P18,437,270.63 Less: Input VAT 459,220.76 Net VAT Payable P17,978,049.87 Less: VAT Paid per VAT returns 4,266,808.49 Basic Deficiency VAT P13,711,241.38 WHEREFORE , the foregoing premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed on 14 March 2016 by petitioner Transnational Plans, Inc. is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED . The deficiency value-added tax assessment shall be adjusted as a result. Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the aggregate amount of P55,415,169.95, representing basic deficiency value-added tax, inclusive of 25% surcharge, 20% deficiency interest and 20% delinquency interest imposed thereon under Sections 248 (A) (3), 249 (B) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, respectively, computed until 31 December 2017, as determined below: Basic Deficiency VAT P13,711,241.38 25% Surcharge 3,427,810.34 Deficiency Interest (20%) from 26 January 2009 to 11 February 2016 (P13,711,241.38 x 20% x 2,573 days/365 days) 19,330,972.09 Total Amount Due as of 11 February 2016 ( i.e. , the date of issuance of the Final Decision) P36,470,023.81 Deficiency Interest (20%) from 12 February 2016 to 31 December 2017 (P13,711,241.38 x 20% x 689 days/365 days) 5,176,463.18 Delinquency Interest (20%) from 12 February 2016 to 31 December 2017 (P36,470,023.81 x 20% x 689 days/365 days) 13,768,682.96 Total Amount Due as of 31 December 2017 P55,415,169.95 In addition, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY delinquency interest at the rate of 12% computed from 01 January 2018 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 10963, also known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) and as implemented by RR 21-2018, 135 on said deficiency value-added tax based on the principal amount of P36,470,023.81. HcDSaT SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JEAN MARIE A. BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., J. , concurs. Footnotes 1. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 11-50. 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 [R]evenue 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. Exhibit "P-1", Division Docket, Volume I, p. 51, Exhibit "P-18", BIR Records, Folder 1, p. 1612. 4. Exhibit "R-16", BIR Records, Folder 1, pp. 1479-1483. 5. Amended Articles of Incorporation, Exhibit "P-2", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 962-973. 6. Id. , pp. 964-965. 7. Exhibit "R-1", BIR Records, Folder I, p. 1. 8. Exhibit "P-12", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1031-1032; BIR Records, Folder 1, Exhibit "R-4", pp. 19-20. 9. Exhibit "P-13", id. , pp. 1033-1034; Exhibit "R-5", id. , pp. 23-24. 10. Exhibit "P-14", id. , pp. 1035-1036; Exhibit "R-6", id. , pp. 25-26. 11. Exhibit "P-15", id. , p. 1037; Exhibit "R-7", id. , p. 1025. 12. Exhibit "P-16", id. , p. 1038; Exhibit "R-8", id. , p. 1027. 13. Exhibit "P-17", id. , p. 1039; Exhibit "R-10", id. , p. 1030. 14. Exhibit "P-4", id. , pp. 976-981; Exhibit "R-9", id. , pp. 1029-1036. 15. Paragraph 2, Summary of Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), id. , Volume II, p. 734. 16. Exhibit "P-5", id. , Volume III, pp. 982-986. 17. Exhibit "R-12", BIR Records, Folder 1, pp. 1178-1181. 18. Exhibit "P-7", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 987-991. 19. Exhibit "P-8", id. , pp. 992-996; Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, Folder 1, pp. 1200-1204. 20. Exhibit "P-9", id. , pp. 997-1013. 21. Supra at note 4. 22. Exhibit "P-11", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1014-1030. 23. Supra at note 3. 24. Supra at note 1. 25. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 234-250. 26. Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original text. 27. Division Docket, Volume I, pp. 251-252. 28. "Petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief" was filed on 05 September 2016, id. , pp. 264-273, whereas "Respondent's Pre-Trial Brief" was filed on 17 November 2016, id. , pp. 287-294. 29. Minutes of the 24 November 2016 Hearing, id. , pp. 311-314. 30. Id. , Volume II, JSFI, pp. 734-742. 31. Id. , pp. 768-778. 32. Motion to Amend Pre-Trial Order dated 19 January 2017, id. , pp. 795-799. 33. Per Records Verification dated 28 March 2017, id. , p. 843. 34. See Amended Pre-Trial Order dated 27 October 2017, id. , pp. 911-922. 35. Id. , pp. 783-786. 36. Motion to Substitute Nominated Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) dated 10 March 2017, id. , pp. 811-813. 37. See Order dated 04 July 2017, id. , pp. 866-867. 38. Exhibit "P-40", id. , Volume I, pp. 320-325. 39. Exhibit "P-42", id. , pp. 352-372. 40. Exhibit "P-51", id. , Volume II, pp. 892-900. 41. Id. , pp. 474-509. 42. Id. , Volume III, pp. 946-961. 43. Id. , p. 1171. 44. Id. , pp. 1182-1186. 45. Exhibit No. Description "P-18" January 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-19" February 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-20" April 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-21" May 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-22" July 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-23" August 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-24" November 2008 Monthly VAT Declaration "P-48 series" Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Historical US Dollar to Peso Daily Exchange Rate for 2008 46. Exhibit No. Description "P-31" Trust Fund Agreement with ING "P-31-A" Trust Fund Agreement with Far East Bank and Trust Company "P-31-B" Trust Fund Agreement with Metrobank 47. Exhibit No. Description "P-43-1199" Official Receipt issued to Arjay Magpantay "P-43-1898" Official Receipt issued to Transcontainer (TCL) Phils., Inc. "P-43-3366" Official Receipt issued to Gregory Almarez "P-49-705" Check Voucher of Ronaldo Abriol "P-49-708" Check Voucher of Catherine De Guzman "P-49-709" Check Requisition Form of Catherine De Guzman "P-49-712" Check Voucher of Macario Alde, Jr. "P-49-713" Matured Plan Settlement of Macario Alde, Jr. "P-49-715" Matured Plan Settlement of Renato Bonifacio "P-49-718" Check Voucher of Ressie Escoto "P-49-721" Check Voucher of Michael Eustaquio "P-49-730" Check Requisition Form of Mark Noel Ines "P-49-733" Check Voucher of Maynardo Lalo "P-49-736" Check Voucher of Rodante Legaspi "P-49-737" Check Requisition Form of Rodante Legaspi "P-40-740" Check Voucher of Manolo Lumbao "P-49-743" Check Voucher of Francis Regal "P-49-746" Check Voucher of Brigido Tac-an, Jr. "P-49-749" Check Voucher of Michael Vedua "P-49-757" Transnational Educational Plan of Rolan Hector Esguerra "P-49-769" Authorization Letter of Nazario Sadian "P-49-774" Check Voucher of Leo Villareal "P-49-775" Matured Plan Settlement of Leo Villareal "P-49-778" Check Voucher of Vener Papa "P-49-779" Matured Plan Settlement of Vener Papa "P-49-782" Check Voucher of Marivic Fegarido "P-49-783" Matured Plan Settlement of Marivic Fegarido "P-49-785" Check Requisition Form of Lina Bella Gonzales "P-49-788" Check Voucher of Agapito Gonzales "P-49-791" Matured Plan Settlement of Agapito Gonzales "P-49-792" Check Requisition Form of Marivic Fegarido "P-49-795" Check Voucher of Timulgene Manalo "P-49-796" Matured Plan Settlement of Timulgene Manalo "P-49-798" Check Voucher of Sherwin Salarda "P-49-799" Matured Plan Settlement of Sherwin Salarda "P-49-803" Check Voucher of Carbonel Pascua "P-49-805" Matured Plan Settlement of Carbonel Pascua "P-49-808" Check Voucher of Alvin Laurino "P-49-809" Matured Plan Settlement of Alvin Laurino "P-49-811" Check Voucher of Diego Cabrera, Jr. "P-49-812" Matured Plan Settlement of Diego Cabrera, Jr. "P-49-813" Check Requisition Form of Diego Cabrera, Jr. "P-49-817" Check Voucher of Aileen Casas "P-49-820" Matured Plan Settlement of Lauro Carmelotes "P-49-823" Check Requisition form of Aileen Casas "P-49-826" Matured Plan Settlement of Ronald Fuentes "P-49-829" to "P-49-831" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Edwin Pocesion "P-49-834" to "P-49-843" Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Dagchay Genelito; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Manuel Parducho; Release and Quitclaim of Myrna Espulgar; Manager's Checks of Lorna Espulgar; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Juanito Arive "P-49-847" Check Voucher of Salvador Abayari "P-49-848" Matured Plan Settlement of Salvador Abayari "P-49-850" to "P-49-852" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Romulo Ablaza, Jr. "P-49-858" Check Voucher of Helen Cajilog "P-49-862" to "P-49-888" Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Helen Cajilog; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Perpetuo De Castro Jr.; Matured Plan Settlement of Dizon Bienvenido; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Alfredo Dote; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Arturo Embile; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Teodoro Mangao, Jr.; Check Voucher and Check Requisition Form of Alfonso Miclat; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Agusto Mortel; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Dario Penamente; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Homer Prieto; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Francisca Rosas "P-49-891" to "P-49-893" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Alejandro Arevalo "P-49-896" Matured Plan Settlement of J Roberto Delgado "P-49-899" Check Voucher of Pedrito Cabana "P-49-902" Matured Plan Settlement of Pedrito Cabana "P-49-903" Check Requisition Form of Pedrito Cabana "P-49-905" Check Voucher of Felix Carusca, Jr. "P-49-908" Matured Plan Settlement of Felix Carusca, Jr. "P-49-909" Check Requisition Form of Felix Carusca, Jr. "P-49-912" Check Voucher of Joel Casiple "P-49-913" Matured Plan Settlement of Joel Casiple "P-49-916" Check Requisition Form of Gilda Casipe "P-49-919" Check Voucher of Miguel Cerdena "P-49-922" Matured Plan Settlement of Miguel Cerdena "P-49-923" Check Requisition Form to Miguel Cerdena "P-49-926" Check Voucher of Eliseo Clemente, Jr. "P-49-932" Check of Eliseo Clemente, Jr. "P-49-933" Check Voucher of Eliseo Clemente, Jr. "P-49-935" Matured Plan Settlement of Eliseo Clemente, Jr. "P-49-937" Check Voucher of Eulagio Glorioso "P-49-940" to "P-49-943" Matured Plan Settlement of Eulogio Glorioso; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Mira Fortuna "P-49-946" Check Voucher of Macario Manlapig "P-49-949" Matured Plan Settlement of Macario Manlapig "P-49-950" Check Requisition Form of Macario Manlapig "P-49-953" Check Voucher of Oliver Oller "P-49-954" Matured Plan Settlement of Oliver Oller "P-49-956" Check Requisition Form of Oliver Oller "P-49-958" Check Voucher of Sergio Salas "P-49-961" Matured Plan Settlement of Sergio Salas "P-49-964" Check Requisition Form of Sergio Salas "P-49-967" Matured Plan Settlement of Alacre Wilson "P-49-970" Check Voucher of Homer Prieto "P-49-973" Matured Plan Settlement of Homer Prieto "P-49-976" Check Requisition Form of Homer Prieto "P-49-977" Check Voucher of Francisca Raras "P-49-979" Matured Plan Settlement of Francisca Raras "P-49-981" Check Requisition Form of Francisca Raras "P-49-984" Check Voucher of Raul Roxas "P-49-987" Check Voucher of Roberto Sael "P-49-989" Check Requisition Form of Roberto Sael "P-49-990" to "P-49-994" Release and Quitclaim of Primo Bondoc; Matured Plan Settlement and Check of Ronald Arambulo; Check Voucher and Plan/Termination Request Form of Rodrigo Guyagon "P-49-996" to "P-49-999" Check Requisition Form of Rodrigo Guyagon; Check Voucher, Plan/Termination Request Form and Check Requisition Form of Victor Yubal "P-49-1001" Check Voucher of Nelson Arnaiz "P-49-1002" Matured Plan Settlement of Nelson Arnaiz "P-49-1004" to "P-49-1007" Check Requisition Form of Nelson Arnaiz; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Precer Erazo "P-49-1010" to "P-49-1012" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Benjamin Gabayan "P-49-1014" to "P-49-1016" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Leonilo Garsuta "P-49-1018" Check Voucher of Edgardo Gonzaga "P-49-1019" Matured Plan Settlement of Edgardo Gonzaga "P-49-1021" Check Requisition Form of Angeline Gonzaga "P-49-1022" Check Voucher of Gaudioso Hubay "P-49-1024" Matured Plan Settlement of Gaudioso Hubay "P-49-1025" Check Requisition Form of Gaudioso Hubay "P-49-1027" Check Voucher of Edgardo Leano "P-49-1028" Matured Plan Settlement of Edgardo Leano "P-49-1030" to "P-49-1036" Check Requisition Form of Glamourfy Leano; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Alfredo Manucat; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Harley Ozarraga "P-49-1038" to "P-49-1041" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Rey Padilla; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Angelico Salarda, Jr. "P-49-1043" to "P-49-1045" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Daniel Agustin "P-49-1047" Plan/Termination Request Form of Rogemar Villar "P-49-1048" Release and Quitclaim of Rogemar Villar "P-49-1050" Check Voucher of Emilio Almocera, Jr. "P-49-1052" to "P-49-1054" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of James Ceniza; Check Requisition Form of Rosalyn Ceniza "P-49-1056" Check Voucher of Odon de Blas "P-49-1057" Matured Plan Settlement of Odon de Blas "P-49-1059" Check Voucher of Richard Del Rosario "P-49-1060" Matured Plan Settlement of Richard Del Rosario "P-49-1062" to "P-49-1064" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Isidro Cornelio "P-49-1066" to "P-49-1069" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Rodney Damasco; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Martin Delos Reyes "P-49-1071" to "P-49-1074" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Romel Ignalig; Check Voucher of Hilario Miranda "P-49-1076" Matured Plan Settlement of Hilario Miranda "P-49-1077" Check Requisition Form of Hilario Miranda "P-49-1079" to "P-49-1081" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Elisar Omega "P-49-1083" Check Voucher of Teofilo Tersol, Jr. "P-49-1085" to "P-49-1090" Matured Plan Settlement of Teofilo Tersol, Jr.; Check Requisition Form of Virginial Tersol; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jesreel Tingzon; Matured Plan Settlement of Arturo Ng "P-49-1092" Release and Quitclaim of Arturo Ng "P-49-1095" to "P-49-1097" Matured Plan Settlement of Jory Pepito; Matured Plan Settlement of Nelson Galila; Plan/Termination Request Form of Fleazan Geronimo "P-49-1099" to "P-49-1101" Check Voucher, Plan/Termination Request Form and Check Requisition Form of Edgardo Tuiroc "P-49-1103" to "P-49-1105" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Benedict Velasco "P-49-1107" Matured Plan Settlement of Francisco Contasi "P-49-1109" Matured Plan Settlement of Capt. Mario Burog "P-49-1110" Check Voucher of Henry Sherwin Lubugan II "P-49-1112" Matured Plan Settlement of Henry Sherwin Lubugan II "P-49-1113" Check Requisition Form of Henry Sherwin Lubugan II "P-49-1115" Check Voucher of Felix Coquilla "P-49-1116" Matured Plan Settlement of Felix Coquilla "P-49-1118" Check Requisition Form of Alicia Coquilla "P-49-1119" Check Requisition Form of Pedro Macalintal "P-49-1121" to "P-49-1124" Matured Plan Settlement of Pedro Macalintal; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Rollyn Fabale "P-49-1126" to "P-49-1128" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Romeo Magtoto; Check Requisition Form of Emilinda Magtoto "P-49-1130" to "P-49-1132" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Ronnie Pimentel "P-49-1134" to "P-49-1136" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Mario Refuerzo "P-49-1140" Check Voucher of Benedicto Romero "P-49-1141" Matured Plan Settlement of Benedicto Romero "P-49-1143" Check Voucher of Dennis John Romero "P-49-1145" Matured Plan Settlement of Dennis John Romero "P-49-1147" Check Requisition Form of Dennis John Romero "P-49-1150" to "P-49-1152" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Bienvenido San Jose "P-49-1156" Check Voucher of Rodel Santiago "P-49-1158" Matured Plan Settlement of Rodel Santiago "P-49-1159" Check Requisition Form of Rodel Santiago "P-49-1163" Check Voucher of Erwin Dequilla "P-49-1164" Plan/Termination Request Form of Erwin Dequilla "P-49-1166" to "P-49-1168" Check Voucher, Plan/Termination Request Form and Check Requisition Form of Lomel Pepito "P-49-1170" Check Voucher of Mary Ann Tatoy "P-49-1171" Plan/Termination Request Form of Mary Ann Tatoy "P-49-1173" to "P-49-1175" Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Nonberto Salinas "P-49-1177" to "P-49-1179" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jessie Casabal "P-49-1181" Check Voucher of Percy-Val Macasar "P-49-1182" Matured Plan Settlement of Percy-Val Macasar "P-49-1184" Check Voucher of Clifford Sin "P-49-1185" Matured Plan Settlement of Clifford Sin "P-49-1187" to "P-49-1189" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Josue Ortega "P-49-1192" to "P-49-1196" Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Ricardo Mendoza; Matured Plan Settlement of Tomas Macabanan "P-49-1198" to "P-49-1201" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Alvin Aleta; Matured Plan Settlement of Rudolfo Reyes; Release and Quitclaim of Medina Reyes "P-49-1203" to "P-49-1206" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Richard Borda; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Carlos Balverde, Jr. "P-49-1208" Check Voucher of Alberto Castaneda "P-49-1209" Matured Plan Settlement of Alberto Castaneda "P-49-1211" to "P-49-1213" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Ramon Dela Cruz; Matured Plan Settlement of Julian Glory, Jr. "P-49-1215" to "P-49-1218" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Eddie Loyola; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Eleno Pineda, Jr. "P-49-1220" Check Voucher of Jeriel Salvador "P-49-1221" Matured Pian Settlement of Jeriel Salvador "P-49-1223" to "P-49-1226" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Edgar Sayno; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Luis Tibubos "P-49-1228" to "P-49-1230" Plan/Termination Request Form of Nell Aboabo; Check Voucher and Plan/Termination Request Form of Rene Casino "P-49-1232" Matured Plan Settlement of Abner Canet "P-49-1233" Release and Quitclaim of Abner Canet "P-49-1235" to "P-49-1240" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Lauro Carmelotes; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Ernesto Almendral; Deposit Slip and Matured Plan Settlement of Eusobio Evangelista "P-49-1243" Check Voucher of Hernie Gimotea "P-49-1244" Check Voucher of Aida Estolas "P-49-1246" Matured Plan Settlement of Aida Estolas "P-49-1247" Check Voucher of William Enverga "P-49-12517 to "P-49-1257" Check Voucher of Arnold Mecija; Check Voucher of Ferdinand Ledesma; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Eusobio Sangacena; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Queson Ramones; Check Voucher of Rene Murga "P-49-1259" to "P-49-1263" Matured Plan Settlement of Radyser Reyes; Check of TPI; Matured Plan Settlement of Bernardo Lopez, Jr.; Matured Plan Settlement of Graciano Ras; Release and Quitclaim of Ras Mark "P-49-1265" to "P-49-1268" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Jose Agmer Andrada; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Ronaldo Cabusao "P-49-1270" Matured Plan Settlement of Ruben Covar P-49-1272" to "P-49-1274" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Leo Carbonilla, Jr.; Check Requisition Form of Julynee Carbonilla "P-49-1276" Matured Plan Settlement of Cincoflores "P-49-1277" Check Voucher of Cincoflores "P-49-1279" to "P-49-1283" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Leonel Importante; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Edwin Francisco "P-49-1285" Check Voucher of Elson Manlunas P-49-1287" Matured Plan Settlement of Elson Manlunas "P-49-1288" Check Requisition Form of Elson Manlunas "P-49-1292" to "P-49-1294" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Abelardo Racelis "P-49-1296" to "P-49-1301" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Peter Romero; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Teresita Ramos "P-49-1303" to "P-49-1306" Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Jennyfer Salvador; Check Voucher and Deposit Slip of Jose Gerry Ruiz "P-49-1308" to "P-49-1311" Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Troy Cortez; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Rey Magaway "P-49-1313" to "P-49-1316" Check Voucher, Deposit Slip, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Bonifacio Dingle "P-49-1335" to "P-49-1385" Check Requisition Form of Vicente Ferrer Delima; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Veronica Burgos; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Guillermo Balagtas; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Wilson Torrecampo; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Guillermo Frayres; Matured Plan Settlement of Wilhem Lejano; Deposit Slip of Joeselyn Lejano; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Danilo Vargas; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Hernane Villa; Deposit Slip and Check Requisition Form of Nero Jove Serrano; Check Voucher and Requisition Form of Rodysser Reyes; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Jimmy Pomar; Check Requisition Form of Ma. Teresa Pomar; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Warel Mapugay; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Vevencio Llagas, Jr.; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement, Release and Quitclaim and Check Requisition Form of Roy Gutierrez; Check Requisition Form of Cenon Dorado; Check Requisition Form and Matured Plan Settlement of Caezar Rodel Caliao; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Amelito Buenaflor; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Mario Amandoron, Sr., Check Requisition Form of Dennis de Vera; Matured Plan Settlement of Jeannette Macariola; Check Requisition Form of Josefina Cabrillas; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Eduardo Salazar "P-49-1388" Check Requisition Form of Angeles Regodon "P-49-1401" to "P-49-1437" Check Requisition Form of Zaldy Mamparo; Check Voucher, Plan/Termination Request Form and Check Requisition Form of Ranier Nadela; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Pablito Marte; Matured Plan Settlement of Silverio Ramos; Check Requisition Form of Marylyn Ramos; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Valentin Presno; Check Requisition Form of Mary Ann Presno; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Josue Jasper Oreas; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Simplico Ordillano; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Nina Ritchie Maneja; Check Requisition Form of Felixberto Maneja, Jr.; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Ramon Mallari, Sr.; Check Requisition Form of Lorna Mallari; Matured Plan Settlement of Edgardo Maceo; Check Requisition Form of Merlin Maceo; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement, Deposit Slip and Check Requisition Form of Metodio Libarios; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement, and Check Requisition Form of Jesus Gutierrez; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Cynthia Gutierrez; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Vicente Ferrer Delima "P-49-1454" to "P-49-1499" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Ma. Cecilia Angeles; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jose Roger Alcayde; Matured Plan Settlement of Ramon Fulgar; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Melencio Sales; Check Requisition Form of Elsie Sales; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Rodolfo Oteda; Matured Plan Settlement and Deposit Slip of Alberto Minoza; Check Requisition Form of Elva Cristina; Check Voucher of Rogelio Jazmin; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Rodolfo Gabi; Check Requisition Form of Emelinda Gabi; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Rex Espadon; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Bonifacio Domingo; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Marciano Comahig, Jr.; Matured Plan Settlement of Cupriano Castillo, Jr.; Check Requisition Form of Emma Castillo; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jesse Calis; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Danilo Cabahug; Check Requisition Form of Myra Cabahug; Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Dener Baylon; Check Requisition Form of Christine Baracao "P-49-1513" to "P-49-1548" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Alejo Roxas; Matured Plan Settlement of Johnny Tsitites; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Ruel Advincula; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Rex Dumalag; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Carlo Danos; Check Voucher and Check Requisition Form of Clarissa Mendosa; Matured Plan Settlement of Josie Padua; Plan/Loan Termination Request Form and Release and Quitclaim of Bernard Julaton; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Fernando Nimeno; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Antonio Dael; Matured Plan Settlement of Ramon Villaruz; Matured Plan Settlement of Leonardo Quevedo; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Paterson Nueva Espana; Matured Plan Settlement and Release and Quitclaim of Dennis Pineda; Check Voucher, Check Requisition Form and Plan/Loan Termination Request Form of Ana Marie Torrenueva; Check Voucher and Plan/Loan Termination Request Form of Ruben Debalocos; Check Requisition Form of Jessa Debalocos; Check Voucher and Check Requisition Form of Ma. Lourdes Singzon "P-49-1564" to "P-49-1613" Matured Plan Settlement of Ma. Lourdes Singzon; Check Voucher, Deposit Slip and Matured Plan Settlement of Laureano Safred, Jr.; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Lani Ramires; Check Requisition Form of Lucia Ramires; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Elena Prado; Check Voucher and Matured Plan Settlement of Filamor Martin; Check Requisition Form of Olivia Martin; Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Rima Medalla; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Ronald Gargarita; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Anthony Eisma; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jovenal Delos Santos; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Modesto Chua; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Ronnie Cadiz; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Redentor Nunez, Check Voucher, Check Requisition Form and Plan/Loan Termination Request Form of Bernard Julaton; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Jose Levi Villanueva; Check Voucher, Check Requisition Form and Plan/Loan Termination Request Form of Tomas Sapla; Check Voucher of Marcial Valmores "P-49-1620" to "P-49-1634" Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Diosdado Deocampo, Jr.; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Joeloree Mirayo; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Carlito Ulep; Check Voucher, Matured Plan Settlement and Check Requisition Form of Job Mitchel Valencia, Check Requisition Form and Matured Plan Settlement of Marcial Valmores; Check Voucher of Rima Medalla 48. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1187-1195. 49. Id. , p. 1197. 50. The First Division was reconstituted after the issuance of CTA Administrative Circular No. 02-18 dated 18 September 2018 entitled "Reorganizing the Three (3) Divisions of the Court." 51. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1198-1201. 52. See Resolution dated 18 March 2019, id. , pp. 1206-1208. 53. Id. , pp. 1209-1214. 54. Id. , pp. 1216-1218. 55. Id. , p. 1220. 56. Id. , p. 1221. 57. Id. , pp. 1226-1231. 58. Supra at note 45. 59. Supra at note 46. 60. Exhibit No. Description "P-49-705" Check Voucher of Ronaldo Abriol "P-49-798" Check Voucher of Sherwin Salarda "P-49-878" Check Requisition Form of Alfonso Miclat "P-49-991" Matured Plan Settlement of Ronald Arambulo "P-49-1015" Matured Plan Settlement of Leonilo Garsuta "P-49-1016" Check Requisition Form of Leonilo Garsuta "P-49-1050" Check Voucher of Emilio Almocera, Jr. "P-49-1107" Matured Plan Settlement of Francisco Contasi "P-49-1270" Matured Plan Settlement of Ruben Covar "P-49-1287" Matured Plan Settlement of Elson Manlunas "P-49-1288" Check Requisition Form of Elson Manlunas "P-49-1583" Matured Plan Settlement of Ronald Gargarita 61. Minutes of the 22 July 2019 Hearing, Division Docket, Volume II, p. 1232. 62. Exhibit "R-20", id. , Volume I, pp. 298-306. 63. Id. 64. See Memorandum Report dated 03 December 2013, Exhibit "R-11", BIR Records, Folder 1, pp. 1170-1173. 65. See Memorandum Report dated 24 February 2014, Exhibit "R-13", id. , pp. 1197-1198. 66. See Memorandum Report dated 08 August 2014, Exhibit "R-15", id. , pp. 1474-1475. 67. See Memorandum Report dated 26 January 2016, Exhibit "R-17", id. , p. 1610. 68. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1234-1242. 69. Id. , pp. 1243-1246. 70. Id. , pp. 1251-1258. 71. Id. , pp. 1261-1263. 72. Id. , pp. 1280-1345. 73. Id. , pp. 1347-1360. 74. Id. , p. 1361. 75. Issue to be Resolved, JSFI, id. , Volume II, p. 735. 76. Team Pacific Corporation v. Daza , G.R. No. 167732, 11 July 2012. 77. Italics in the original text and emphasis supplied. 78. Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the Code Through Payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty. 79. Amending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 Relative to the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. 80. Italics in the original text, emphasis and underscoring supplied. 81. Since 12 March 2016 fell on a Saturday, petitioner had until the next working day ( i.e. , 14 March 2016) to file its Petition for Review. 82. G.R. No. 179343, 21 January 2010. 83. Underscoring in the original text; emphases and underscoring supplied. 84. Supra at note 17. 85. Supra at note 19. 86. Supra at note 4. 87. Italics in the original text; emphasis and underscoring supplied. 88. G.R. No. 215534, 18 April 2016. 89. Exhibit "P-29", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1062-1132. 90. Supra at note 17. 91. Supra at note 19. 92. Supra at note 4. 93. Circularizing the Full Text of Unnumbered Memorandum Dated November 12, 2007 Regarding "Table Audit of Pre-Need Companies." 94. CTA Case No. 6185, 26 October 2004; Citations omitted and emphasis supplied. 95. Sec. 203 . Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection . 96. Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1054-1055. 97. Id. , pp. 1056-1057. 98. Id. , pp. 1058-1059. 99. Id. , pp. 1060-1061. 100. Supra at note 19. 101. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Standard Chartered Bank , G.R. No. 192173, 29 July 2015; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kudos Metal Corporation , G.R. No. 178087, 05 May 2010; citations omitted. 102. G.R. No. 162852, 16 December 2004; citations omitted. 103. Supra at note 8. 104. Supra at note 9. 105. Supra at note 10. 106. Supra at note 11. 107. Supra at note 12. 108. Supra at note 13. 109. Supra at note 8. 110. Supra at note 9. 111. Supra at note 10. 112. Supra at note 11. 113. Supra at note 12. 114. Supra at note 13. 115. G.R. No. 212825, 07 December 2015. 116. Supra at note 93. 117. Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005. 118. Amending Certain Provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005. 119. Emphasis supplied. 120. Emphasis supplied. 121. Exhibit "P-30", Division Docket, Volume III, pp. 1133-1137. 122. G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113, and 197156, 12 February 2013. 123. Italics in the original text and emphasis supplied. 124. Sec. 23. General Principles of Income Taxation in the Philippines . Except when otherwise provided in this Code: xxx xxx xxx (C) An individual citizen of the Philippines who is working and deriving income from abroad as an overseas contract worker is taxable only on income from sources within the Philippines: Provided, That a seaman who is a citizen of the Philippines and who receives compensation for services rendered abroad as a member of the complement of a vessel engaged exclusively in international trade shall be treated as an overseas contract worker; xxx xxx xxx 125. Clarifying the Amount Subject to VAT and Expanded Withholding Tax (Income Tax) of Brokers and Others Similarly Situated and the Other Parties with Whom They Transact Business. 126. Emphasis supplied and underscoring in the original text. 127. Note 16 of the Notes to the 2008 Audited Financial Statements, Exhibit "P-29", Division Docket, Volume III, p. 1124. 128. Supra at note 19. 129. Supra at note 4. 130. As found by the ICPA, total cash receipts (per petitioner's Cash Receipts Journal) amounted to P141,730,991.00, which is lower than the total collections ( per vouching of the official receipts issued by petitioner in TY 2008) of P142,156,319.47. 131. LNS International Manpower Services v. Padua, Jr. , G.R. No. 179792, 05 March 2010. 132. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hon. Gonzalez, et al. , G.R. No. 177279, 13 October 2010. 133. Marcos II v. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 120880, 05 June 1997. 134. As found by the ICPA, the total collections ( per vouching of the official receipts issued by petitioner in TY 2008) amounted to P142,156,319.47. 135. Regulations Implementing Section 249 (Interest) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended under Section 75 of the Republic Act (RA) No. 10963 or the "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN Law)."