Abundance Providers and Entrepreneurs Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9407. July 14, 2023.] ABUNDANCE PROVIDERS AND ENTREPRENEURS CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondents . DECISION REYES-FAJARDO , * J p : Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by Abundance Providers and Entrepreneurs Corporation (petitioner or APEC) against respondents Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) praying for the Court to reverse, cancel, nullify, and/or declare void the assessments finding APEC liable for deficiency income tax, value-added tax (VAT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), and documentary stamp tax (DST) relative to taxable year 2008, pursuant to the CIR's Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) 2 with attached Details of Discrepancies 3 dated February 24, 2016. HTcADC FACTS APEC is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. 4 It is registered with respondent BIR under Tax Identification Number 000-799-948-00000, with address at 2nd Floor, Eurovilla 1 Condominium, 142 Legaspi corner V.A. Rufino Streets, San Lorenzo, Makati City. 5 Respondent CIR is the head of respondent BIR, the government agency tasked to assess and collect all national internal revenue taxes. Respondent CIR has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the Tax Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the BIR. 6 Empowered by Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2008 00033698 7 dated July 1, 2009 , the BIR examined APEC's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes covering the calendar year 2008. The initial audit team consisted of Group Supervisor (GS) Erlinda V. Ulgado and Revenue Officers (ROs) Gerald Alan Quebral and Belinda Balagtas. Subsequently, in a Memorandum 8 dated April 5, 2010 and letter 9 dated April 7, 2010 , the BIR 10 referred APEC's entire docket "for continuance of investigation" and informed the taxpayer that the conduct of the audit and examination of its books of accounts and accounting records have been "re-assigned to Revenue Officer/s Maribel D. Serafica, Reynoso Bravo, Walter Batoon, Daniela S. Gabaon, Olivia Sison, under Group Supervisor Erlinda V. Ulgado." In the interim, APEC executed four Waivers of the Defense of Prescription (Waivers) which suspended the prescriptive period under Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) and allowed the BIR to extend audit and investigation as follows: CAIHTE Date of Execution Extended until First Waiver 11 February 2, 2011 December 31, 2011 Second Waiver 12 November 4, 2011 June 30, 2012 Third Waiver 13 May 25, 2012 September 30, 2012 Fourth Waiver 14 August 22, 2012 June 30, 2013 Thereafter, the BIR issued Notice of Informal Conference dated November 12, 2012 . 15 On account of the re-assignment/retirement/transfer of revenue officers that handled previously the audit of APEC's books, the BIR issued a Memorandum of Assignment (MOA) 16 dated February 25, 2013 to refer anew APEC's case for continuance to RO Arnaldo T. Ancheta and GS Juvy S. De La Pea. In a Memorandum 17 dated May 8, 2013 , RO Ancheta, with other ROs and GS De La Pea, recommended the approval of a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), informing APEC of the audit results, corresponding deficiency tax assessments, and details thereon. Based on this recommendation, on May 28, 2013 , the CIR 18 issued the PAN with attached Details of Discrepancies 19 finding APEC liable for deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and DST for taxable year 2008, in the aggregate amount of P113,428,791.61, computed as follows: Basic Interest Compromise Penalty Total Income tax P2,137,343.09 P1,800,048.97 25,000.00 P3,962,392.06 VAT 53,488,545.85 47,392,546.28 50,000.00 100,931,092.13 20 EWT 47,984.07 42,909.75 16,000.00 106,893.82 DST 4,429,484.17 3,948,929.43 50,000.00 8,428,413.60 Total P60,103,357.18 P53,184,434.43 P141,000.00 P113,428,791.61 ======== =========== =========== ========== ============= After its receipt thereof on May 28, 2013 , APEC responded to the PAN through a letter 21 dated June 10, 2013 . It refuted the assessments for each tax type and submitted the corresponding factual and legal arguments in support thereof. On June 26, 2013 , upon the recommendation of RO Ancheta, the other ROs, and GS De La Pea, the CIR 22 issued the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) with attached Details of Discrepancies 23 and Audit Results/Assessments, 24 which reiterated APEC's deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and DST liabilities in the aggregate amount of P114,449,277.99, computed as follows: aScITE Basic Interest Compromise Penalty Total Income tax P2,137,343.09 P1,836,362.43 25,000.00 P3,998,705.52 VAT 53,488,545.85 48,300,691.769 n 50,000.00 101,839,237.64 EWT 47,984.07 43,724.52 16,000.00 107,708.59 DST 4,429,484.17 4,024,142.07 50,000.00 8,503,626.24 Total P60,103,357.18 * P54,204,920.79 P141,000.00 * P114,449,277.97 ======== ============ =========== ========== ============ * Same amount as reflected in the PAN. The CIR provided the following explanation to justify the issuance of the FLD: We received protest letter, (sic) without sufficient and valid documentation and legal basis on June 13, 2013 but failed to execute Waiver of the Defense of Prescription as contemplated under Sections 203 and 22 (sic) of National Internal Revenue Code which we have already requested in our Preliminary Assessment Notice, (sic) this Formal Assessment has been issued to protect the interest of the government. However, please be informed that you may still file/reiterate your protest against this FAN within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Regulations 12-99. 25 This prompted APEC to file its administrative protest 26 on July 26, 2013 . However, the CIR denied the same through the FDDA with attached Details of Discrepancies dated February 24, 2016 and sought the payment of the aggregate amount of P144,809,602.46, computed as follows: Basic Interest Compromise Penalty Total Income Tax P2,095,039.35 P2,881,396.58 P25,000.00 P5,001,435.93 VAT 53,488,545.85 75,909,771.92 50,000.00 129,448,317.77 EWT 41,954.08 59,770.20 16,000.00 117,724.28 DST 4,194,053.48 5,998,071.00 50,000.00 10,242,124.48 Total P59,819,592.76 P84,849,009.70 P141,000.00 P144,809,602.46 ========= =========== =========== ========== ============ While APEC moved for reconsideration of the said assessment through a letter dated March 23, 2016, 27 the CIR denied the same in a Final Decision 28 dated June 30, 2016 . DETACa Hence, on August 1, 2016 , APEC filed the present Petition for Review (judicial protest). The CIR filed its Answer 29 on December 5, 2016. After the conduct of a Pre-Trial Conference, the parties submitted their respective Briefs 30 and Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues. 31 Consequently, the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order 32 dated January 12, 2018. Trial ensued thereafter. For its part, APEC presented the testimonies of the following individuals, namely: (1) Mr. Renato V. Bernardo, petitioner's General Accounting Department Manager; (2) Mr. Rolando I. Gonzalez, petitioner's Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer; (3) Mr. Mamerto A. Marcelo, Jr., Rehabilitation Receiver of petitioner; (4) Ms. Agnes C. Colobong, former Accounting Officer for petitioner's Tax Accounting Division; (4) Ms. Maria Gracia L. Morfe, the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA); and (5) Mr. Raoul V. Santos, Senior Vice President of the Trust and Investment Division of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. On the other hand, the CIR presented the testimony of Assistant Revenue District Officer (Chief Revenue Officer II) Juvy S. Dela Pea. 33 The present case was submitted for decision on July 25, 2022. 34 APEC's Arguments APEC raises the following arguments: 1) The CIR's claim for alleged deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT and DST for the year 2008 will imperil APEC's ongoing corporate rehabilitation to the detriment of its planholders; 35 2) The FDDA, which essentially reiterated the alleged deficiency taxes contained in the FAN and PAN, is null and void for having been issued by respondents in blatant violation of petitioner's right to due process of law; 36 3) The CIR's right to assess and collect deficiency taxes against petitioner for taxable year 2008 has already prescribed without a valid FAN having been issued; 37 and, 4) Even assuming arguendo that there was a valid LOA in the conduct of tax audit/investigation, and that the FDDA was issued in accordance with due process of law and the respondents' right to assess and collect deficiency taxes has not yet prescribed, the alleged deficiency taxes for the year 2008 nevertheless remain invalid for being devoid of legal and/or factual basis. 38 HEITAD Respondents' Arguments In contrast, the CIR submits the following defenses: 1) The argument that APEC is undergoing corporate rehabilitation is unavailing. 39 Only the CTA can suspend the collection of internal revenue taxes. 40 2) APEC's argument that it did not consider its response to the PAN is unsubstantiated. 41 3) The CIR's right to assess APEC has not prescribed on account of the Waivers which it duly executed. 42 4) APEC remains liable for deficiency income tax, VAT, and DST, as the assessments are founded on sufficient factual and legal bases. ISSUES Central to the present judicial protest is the validity of the subject tax assessments issued against APEC. This core issue turns upon the resolution of the following questions: First , did the CIR accord APEC due process in the administrative assessment proceedings? Second , were the revenue officers vested with the required formal authority to audit and investigate APEC? Third , were the assessments issued within the prescriptive period allowed by law? OUR RULING The Petition for Review is meritorious. We hold that the FLD and resulting FDDA are invalid for having been issued (a) in violation of the taxpayer's due process rights and (b) based on the audit findings of unauthorized ROs. Being null and void, the assessments did not produce any legal effect. In other words, the period of prescription lapsed without a valid assessment. The CIR is now barred from assessing APEC for deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT, and DST relative to calendar year 2008. The FLD and FDDA were issued in violation of APEC's right to due process. In the present case, We note that APEC (a) responded to the PAN through a letter dated June 10, 2013 and (b) filed a formal protest to the FLD. However, the taxpayer's right to administrative due process does not consist only of the formal filing of its responses to the PAN and Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/FLD. The cardinal rules in upholding a litigant's right to due process in administrative proceedings are laid out in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay). 43 According to the second and seventh rules in Ang Tibay , "[n]ot only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented . . . [Further, the administrative tribunal or body] should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered ." (Emphasis supplied) aDSIHc The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. (Avon). 44 In Avon , the taxpayer responded to the PAN. However, the CIR simply reproduced the PAN's contents in the subsequent FLD/FAN. That the FAN/FLD had no mention of the taxpayer's arguments (raised in its reply) or any discussion on the merits thereof was, according to the Supreme Court, an indication that the tax authorities did not comply their own procedures. It explained further: It is true that the Commissioner is not obliged to accept the taxpayer's explanations, as explained by the Court of Tax Appeals. However, when he or she rejects these explanations, he or she must give some reason for doing so. He or she must give the particular facts upon which his or her conclusions are based, and those facts must appear in the record . Indeed, the Commissioner's inaction and omission to give due consideration to the arguments and evidence submitted before her by Avon are deplorable transgressions of Avon's right to due process. The right to be heard, which includes the right to present evidence, is meaningless if the Commissioner can simply ignore the evidence without reason . (Emphasis supplied) It is clear from the pronouncements in Ang Tibay and Avon that the requirement of administrative due process is not met sufficiently by the mere formal act of receiving a taxpayer's defenses submitted in writing. Administrative due process also requires judicious consideration of the matters raised therein, independent evaluation of the case, and due notification to parties of the reasons for judgment . In like manner, in the present case, We observe the following: First , the FLD contained amounts of basic tax (in the aggregate amount of P60,103,357.18) and compromise penalty (in the aggregate amount of P141,000.00) identical to those in the PAN, adjusted only to update the computation of interest. Second , verily, the CIR attached Details of Discrepancies to the PAN and FLD, respectively, to explain the findings and resulting deficiency tax amounts. However, the Details of Discrepancies accompanying the FLD bore the exact same explanations/contents as those already provided in the Details of Discrepancies accompanying the PAN. Third , aside from its repetitive discussions, the CIR did not mention any of APEC's arguments, much less give an intelligent discourse in resolving each matter raised. It merely referred to APEC's protest letter as "without sufficient and valid documentation and legal basis." ATICcS The identity in substance between the subject PAN and the subsequent FLD, as well as the Details of Discrepancies accompanying them, as in Avon , shows that the CIR completely ignored APEC's response to the PAN. To reiterate, the filing of a response to the PAN prior to the issuance of the FAN/FLD cannot be a useless exercise. While the CIR remains to have the sole discretion whether or not to act favorably on the response/protest, it is nonetheless duty-bound to, at least, consider the taxpayer's defenses in resolving the case and provide clear reasons for its decision, citing the applicable factual and legal bases for its conclusion. It is also worth noting that the CIR issued the FLD on June 26, 2013 "to protect the interest of the government" on account of APEC's failure to execute another Waiver extending the assessment period. These statements convince Us that the CIR issued the FLD in haste and as a mere afterthought to foreclose the impending prescription of its right to assess, which was set to expire on June 30, 2013 . We find the above-discussed lapses on the part of the tax authorities as amounting to a violation of APEC's violation to due process. The concerned revenue officers did not possess the required formal authority to audit APEC. An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate RO assigned to perform assessment functions. It empowers or enables said RO to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax. 45 The LOA commences the audit process and informs the taxpayer that it is under audit for possible deficiency tax assessment. 46 In AFP General Insurance Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 47 the Supreme Court underscored the importance of the RO's authority relative to the validity of the resulting assessment, viz. : The power to assess necessarily includes the authority to examine any taxpayer for purposes of determining the correct amount of tax due from him. Verily, the law vests the BIR with general powers in relation to the 'assessment and collection of all internal revenue taxes.' However, certainly, not all BIR personnel may motu proprio proceed to audit a taxpayer. Only 'the CIR or his duly authorized representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer ' and issue an assessment against him . That a representative has in fact been authorized to audit a taxpayer is evidenced by the LOA, which 'empowers a designated [r]evenue [o]fficer to examine, verify, and scrutinize a taxpayer's books and records in relation to his internal revenue tax liabilities for a particular period.' ETHIDa In cases where the BIR conducts an audit without a valid LOA, or in excess of the authority duly provided therefor, the resulting assessment shall be void and ineffectual . x x x." (Emphasis supplied.) Stated differently, ROs must be vested with the necessary authority before it may proceed to audit or investigate any taxpayer. Conversely, it must act only within the bounds of the authority thus given. Otherwise, the examination and the resulting assessment shall be a nullity. 48 As borne by the records of the case, We observe the following: First , the audit of APEC's books and resulting assessment was founded on the strength of LOA No. 2008 00033698 dated July 1, 2009. The LOA designated the initial audit team, namely: GS Ulgado, RO Quebral, and RO Balagtas . Second , incumbent chiefs of the BIR Large Taxpayers (LT) Regular Audit Division I sought to continue the audit of APEC's books of account and replace certain members of the audit team that have been transferred elsewhere or have otherwise retired/resigned from the BIR. For these purposes, the following correspondence were issued: Document Issued By New ROs Designated Letter 49 dated April 7, 2010 Edralin M. Silario, OIC-Chief LT Regular Audit Division I GS Ulgado ROs Serafica, Bravo, Batoon, Gabaon, Sison MOA 50 dated February 25, 2013 Cesar D. Escalada, Chief, Regular LT Division I GS De La Pea RO Ancheta Third , GS De La Pea and RO Ancheta, together with ROs Tito M. Monforte, Riza F. Budano and Ma. Grace Cecilia F. San Pedro , submitted to the CIR a Memorandum 51 dated June 24, 2013 recommending the issuance of a PAN against APEC based on the audit findings. It appears from these circumstances that new ROs were re-assigned or transferred to the case to continue the investigation in the place of the initial members of the audit team named in the original LOA issued for the case. This was done on the strength of mere correspondence/memoranda signed by OIC/Chiefs of the LT Regular Audit Division of the BIR. However, in the recent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDonald's Philippines Realty Corp. (McDonald's), 52 the Supreme Court already proscribed this practice of deploying new ROs to an audit without issuing a new LOA or formally amending the original , viz. : This practice typically occurs as follows: (i) a valid LOA is issued to an authorized revenue officer; (ii) the revenue officer named in the LOA is reassigned or transferred to another office, case or place of assignment, or retires, resigns, or is otherwise removed from handling the case covered by the LOA; (iii) the revenue district officer or a subordinate official issues a memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or such equivalent document to a new revenue officer for the continuation of the audit or investigation; and (iv) the new revenue officer continues the audit or investigation, supposedly under the authority of the previously issued LOA. TIADCc xxx xxx xxx The practice of reassigning or transferring revenue officers, who are the original authorized officers named in the LOA, and subsequently substituting them with new revenue officers who do not have a separate LOA issued in their name, is in effect a usurpation of the statutory power of the CIR or his duly authorized representative . The memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or such other equivalent internal document of the BIR directing the reassignment or transfer of revenue officers, is typically signed by the revenue district officer or other subordinate official, and not signed or issued by the CIR or his duly authorized representative under Sections 6, 10 (c) and 13 of the NIRC. Hence, the issuance of such memorandum of assignment, and its subsequent use as a proof of authority to continue the audit or investigation, is in effect supplanting the functions of the LOA, since it seeks to exercise a power that belongs exclusively to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives . (Emphasis supplied) In light of the pronouncement in McDonald's , the substitution or replacement of ROs to continue the audit/investigation shall be valid only if the following requisites concur: (a) For this purpose, pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90 dated September 20, 1990, 53 a new or amended LOA is issued by the CIR or any of its duly authorized representatives ( e.g. , the Deputy Commissioners, the Revenue Regional Directors, and such other officials as may be authorized by the CIR). (b) The audit is continued only by those ROs expressly designated in the new or amended LOA . That the ROs are substituted or replaced during the pendency of an audit without complying with the above-mentioned requisites renders the resulting assessment void for lack of statutory authority to examine the taxpayers' books of account. To be sure, in the present case, the ROs that continued and concluded the audit/investigation and recommended the issuance of a PAN against APEC did not possess the required authority. There was no separate or amended LOA expressly naming them as substitutes or replacements to continue the audit and only BIR chiefs of office approved the substitution/replacement. As the ROs were unauthorized, the subject tax assessments emanating from their audit findings are also invalid. cSEDTC As things stand, while the tax authorities were able to convince the taxpayer to execute Waivers to extend the assessment period until June 30, 2013, the CIR nonetheless failed to issue valid tax assessments within this time. This caused the CIR's right to assess to prescribe. At this point, the BIR no longer has any authority to hold APEC liable for deficiency taxes relative to taxable year 2008. On this account, We no longer find it necessary to discuss the substantive aspect of the subject tax assessments. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand dated June 26, 2013 and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment dated February 24, 2016 assessing petitioner for deficiency income tax, value-added tax, expanded withholding tax, and documentary stamp tax assessments for calendar year 2008 are hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE for being void. Respondents, its representatives, agents, or other persons acting in its behalf are ENJOINED from enforcing against the petitioner the collection of deficiency income tax, value-added tax, expanded withholding tax, and documentary stamp tax assessments for calendar year 2008. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Lanee S. Cui-David, * JJ. , concur. Footnotes * Designated as special members of the Third Division per Memorandum dated August 9, 2022. Docket Vol. 12, p. 6448. 1. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 6-91. Filed on August 1, 2018. 2. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 299-301. 3. Docket Vol. 1, pp. 302-306. 4. Exhibit "P-1", Docket Vol. 10, p. 4794. 5. Exhibit "P-2", Docket Vol. 10, pp. 4796 to 4797. 6. Par. 1, Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket Vol. 5, p. 2247. 7. Exhibits "P-28" and "R-1", BIR Records, p. 1. 8. Exhibit "R-7", BIR Records, p. 22. 9. Exhibits "P-32" and "R-8", BIR Records, p. 24. 10. Through Edralin M. Silario, OIC-Chief, Large Taxpayers Regular Audit Division I. 11. Exhibit "R-24", BIR Records, p. 4. 12. Exhibit "R-25", BIR Records, p. 7. 13. Exhibit "R-26", BIR Records, p. 9. 14. Exhibit "R-27", BIR Records, p. 1123. 15. Exhibits "P-54" and "R-11", BIR Records, p. 849. 16. Exhibits "P-56" and "R-14", BIR Records, p. 851. 17. Exhibits "P-58" and "R-15", BIR Records, pp. 925 to 928. 18. Through Alfredo B. Misajon, Assistant Commissioner, OIC, Large Taxpayers Service. 19. Exhibit "P-15", Docket Vol. 11, pp. 5333 to 5338; and Exhibit "R-16", BIR Records, pp. 931 to 936. 20. The total in the PAN is P100,931,002.13. 21. Exhibit "P-16", Docket Vol. 11, pp. 5340 to 5344; and Exhibit "R-17", BIR Records, pp. 999 to 1003. 22. Through Assistant Commissioner Misajon. 23. Docket Volume 1, pp. 144-149; Exhibit "P-17", Docket Vol. 11, pp. 5346 to 5351; Exhibit "R-19", BIR Records, pp. 1120 to 1122. 24. Exhibits "R-20", "R-20-A", "R-20-B", "R-20-C", BIR Records, pp. 1113 to 1116. 25. Docket Volume 1, p. 144. 26. Exhibit "P-18", Docket Vol. 11, pp. 5353 to 5374; and Exhibit "R-21", BIR Records, pp. 2061 to 2083. 27. Exhibit "P-19", Docket Vol. 11, pp. 5501 to 5528. 28. Exhibit "P-3", Docket Vol. 10, p. 4799. 29. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1113 to 1125. 30. For respondent, see Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1156 to 1159; For petitioner, through the Compliance-Manifestation dated April 11, 2017, see Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1165 to 1201. 31. Docket Vol. 5, pp. 2247 to 2255. 32. Docket Vol. 5, pp. 2269 to 2277. 33. Exhibit "R-29", Docket Vol. 7, pp. 3120 to 3134; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, May 27, 2021, Docket Vol. 12, pp. 6255 to 6257. 34. Resolution dated July 25, 2022, Docket Vol. 12, p. 6452. 35. Docket Vol. 1, p. 21. 36. Docket Vol. 1, p. 21. 37. Docket Vol. 1, p. 22. 38. Docket Vol. 1, p. 22. 39. Docket Vol. 3, p. 1115. 40. Docket Vol. 3, p. 1114. 41. Docket Vol. 3, p. 1115. 42. Docket Vol. 3, pp. 1115-1116. 43. G.R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940, 69 PHIL 635-645. 44. G.R. Nos. 201398-99 & 201418-19, October 3, 2018. 45. Himlayang Pilipino Plans, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 241848, May 14, 2021. 46. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. De La Salle University, Inc., et seq. , G.R. Nos. 196596, 198841, and 198941, November 9, 2016. 47. G.R. No. 222133, November 4, 2020. 48. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010. 49. Exhibits "P-32" and "R-8", BIR Records, p. 24. 50. Exhibits "P-56" and "R-14", BIR Records, p. 851. 51. Exhibits "P-58" and "R-15", BIR Records, pp. 925 to 928. 52. G.R. No. 242670, May 10, 2021. 53. Amendment of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 37-90 Prescribing Revised Policy Guidelines for Examination of Returns and Issuance of Letters of Authority to Audit, Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90, September 20, 1990. n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.