Bright Alliance Enterprises Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue FI

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9696. December 18, 2022.] BRIGHT ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION MANAHAN , J p : This Petition for Review filed on October 6, 2017 prays for the Court to grant the following reliefs, to wit: 1. Issuance of an Order suspending the enforcement of the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) dated September 5, 2016, and to direct respondent and all persons acting for and on his behalf to cease and desist from enforcing the said warrant, pending resolution of this Petition; and 2. Issuance of an Order/Decision declaring both the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated January 12, 2016 and WDL dated September 5, 2017 void, and of no legal force and effect. 1 THE PARTIES Petitioner Bright Alliance Enterprises Corporation was previously engaged in the retail food business, owning a Mister Donut franchise. 2 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) under Tax Identification Number (TIN) 237-735-767-000, with address at No. 7 Driod Street, Cubao, Quezon City. 3 On the other hand, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) is the duly appointed head of the BIR, the government agency tasked to, among others, collect all national internal revenue taxes. As Commissioner, respondent has the power to decide disputed assessments or other matters arising under the Tax Code or other laws administered by the BIR. 4 FACTS A Letter of Authority No. 040-2013-00001190 dated December 2, 2013 was issued by respondent for the tax examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for taxable year (TY) 2012. 5 On January 6, 2016, petitioner received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated December 21, 2015, wherein respondent assessed petitioner for deficiency income tax and value-added tax (VAT), in the total amount of P11,491,610.91, inclusive of interest. 6 Subsequently, on January 15, 2016, petitioner received a FLD dated January 12, 2016 (with corresponding Assessment Notices) (FLD/FANs), wherein respondent assessed petitioner for deficiency income tax and VAT in the total amount of P11,614,880.83, inclusive of interest. Respondent served the said FLD/FANs at the 3/F Farmer's Plaza, Cubao, Quezon City. 7 On February 15, 2016, petitioner filed a protest to the FLD/FANs. 8 Thereafter, on April 15, 2016, petitioner submitted documents to support the arguments contained in the protest. 9 On March 16, 2016, petitioner received from respondent the letter dated March 7, 2016, stating that the protest of petitioner to the FLD/FANs was filed out of time and further alleged that petitioner received the FLD on January 12, 2016, through Mr. Mark Anthony Mainit, hence, the thirty (30)-day period to file a protest expired on February 11, 2016. As a consequence, respondent claimed that the assessments for TY 2012 had become final and executory. 10 Petitioner then filed the letter dated March 7, 2016 with the BIR on March 22, 2016, 11 requesting for the reconsideration of the allegation in respondent's letter dated March 7, 2016 that the FLD/FANs have become final and executory. Thereafter, petitioner received the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) dated July 4, 2016 on July 25, 2016. 12 Subsequently, on August 2, 2016, petitioner received the Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS) dated July 8, 2016. 13 Consequently, on August 31, 2016, petitioner filed a letter dated August 22, 2016 with the BIR, 14 informing the latter that the demand to settle petitioner's tax liabilities is premature, and without legal basis, because a valid assessment has not attached against petitioner, due to the alleged ineffectual and invalid service of the FLD/FANs dated January 12, 2016. aScITE On September 6, 2017, petitioner received the WDL dated September 5, 2017 signed by Ms. Alice S.A. Gonzales, Chief of the Collection Division, on behalf of respondent, directing the concerned revenue officers of the BIR to distrain personal properties and levy upon real properties of petitioner, in view of the alleged deficiency taxes of petitioner in the amount of P11,614,880.83, inclusive of interest. 15 Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on October 6, 2017. 16 On January 8, 2018, respondent posted his Answer, 17 raising therein his affirmative defenses against the Petition for Review. Respondent submitted the BIR Records of the case on April 6, 2018, consisting of three hundred ninety-four (394) pages contained in one (1) folder. 18 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on April 24, 2018. 19 However, upon respondent's Motion to Reset Pre-Trial Conference filed on April 16, 2018, 20 the Court, in the Resolution dated April 24, 2018, 21 reset the Pre-Trial Conference on July 3, 2018. In the meantime, petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief was posted on April 20, 2018, 22 while respondent's Pre-Trial Brief was filed on July 2, 2018. 23 On July 19, 2018, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues. 24 Subsequently, the Pre-Trial Order dated August 10, 2018 25 was issued, thereby deeming the termination of the Pre-Trial Conference. Trial then ensued. Petitioner presented its documentary and testimonial evidence. It offered the testimonies of its witnesses namely: (1) Mr. Rolando Javen, 26 Operations Manager of petitioner; and (2) Ms. Recel B. Manalang, 27 Area Manager of Manuel Carlo's Snack House. Petitioner posted its Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence on August 7, 2019, 28 to which respondent filed his Comment/Opposition to Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence on September 11, 2019. 29 In the Resolution dated November 8, 2019, 30 the Court admitted the offered exhibits of petitioner, except for Exhibits "P-12" and "P-13", for the latter's failure to present the originals thereof for comparison. Respondent likewise presented his documentary and testimonial evidence. He offered the testimonies of Revenue Officers (ROs) Emelina R. Mateo 31 and Zaldy D. Dy. 32 On December 9, 2020, the Formal Offer of Evidence of respondent was posted, 33 to which petitioner filed its Comment on January 12, 2021. 34 In the Resolution dated May 19, 2021, 35 the Court admitted respondent's offered exhibits, except for the following: 1. Exhibit "R-4-E", for failure to present the original thereof for comparison; and 2. Exhibit "R-17", for failure to submit the duly marked exhibit. Petitioner's Memorandum was posted on July 14, 2021. 36 Respondent, however, failed to file his memorandum. 37 The present case was submitted for decision on December 16, 2021. 38 ISSUES The parties submit the following issues to be resolved by this Court, to wit: "a. Whether petitioner is liable to pay deficiency income tax and VAT in the total amount of Eleven Million Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Pesos and Eighty Three Centavos (P11,614,880.83); b. Whether respondent violated the right of petitioner to due process when it issued the assessments and the warrant of distraint and/or levy; c. Whether the right of respondent to assess deficiency income tax and VAT for taxable year 2012 has already prescribed; d. Whether the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction over the case; and e. Whether the assessments are final, executory and demandable." 39 Petitioner's arguments Petitioner alleges that respondent and his duly authorized representatives violated its right to due process on the ground that the PAN, as well as the FLD/FANs, were served on a totally different Mister Donut franchisee located at the 3/F Farmer's Plaza, Cubao, Quezon City, which is not in any way related to or a duly authorized representative of petitioner. Further, petitioner avers that the right to due process was similarly violated when respondent did not give it the opportunity to protest the assessments within the thirty (30)-day period from receipt thereof by merely dismissing the same on the ground that it was filed out of time and subsequently issuing a WDL which is in violation of the provisions of Section 228 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. Petitioner also contends that the right of respondent to assess alleged deficiency taxes for TY 2012 has already prescribed having issued the FLD/FANs beyond the three (3)-year period prescribed under Section 203 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. HEITAD Respondent's counter-arguments Respondent primarily assails the jurisdiction of the Court because the subject assessments have become final, executory and demandable. The CIR contends that the Petition for Review was filed out of time and as allegedly admitted by petitioner, it received a letter denying its protest on March 16, 2016. Under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, the petitioner has thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision to appeal the same before the Court of Tax Appeals or until April 16, 2016 and since the Petition for Review was filed only on October 6, 2017, respondent asserts that the same was belatedly filed. Respondent also avers that resort to reply-letters is not the proper remedy to a letter denying its protest and such did not operate to toll the running of the period within which to file an appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals. RULING OF THE COURT The Court shall first address the issue of jurisdiction as this has primacy over all the other issues raised. Respondent contends that the Petition for Review was filed out of time because petitioner failed to file a timely appeal with the Court from the time it received the letter denying its protest on March 16, 2016. Respondent cites the fact that the Petition for Review was filed only on October 6, 2017 and claims that the filing of the appeal was late by a total of 539 days. This Court disagrees. Section 7 (a) (1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, 40 as amended by RA No. 9282 41 confers upon this Court the jurisdiction to decide not only cases on disputed assessments and refunds of internal revenue taxes, but also on "other matters" arising under the 1997 NIRC, as amended, and we quote: "SEC. 7. Jurisdiction . The CTA shall exercise: (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes , fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue "; (emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing provision, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to cases which involve decisions of respondent on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, or related laws administered by the BIR. 42 In Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 43 the Supreme Court held as follows, to wit: "The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds. The second part of the provision covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The wording of the provision is clear and simple. It gives the CTA the jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR is valid and to rule if the Waiver of Statute of Limitations was validly effected." (emphasis supplied) Clearly, the validity of a WDL is an issue that falls under "other matters arising from the National Internal Revenue Code" that is within the jurisdiction of this Court to decide upon. The instant Petition for Review primarily assails the WDL dated September 5, 2016 issued by the BIR which is cognizable by the Court. In the recently decided case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CTA Second Division and QL Development, Inc. , 44 the Supreme Court reiterated that the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court is not limited to cases involving decisions of the CIR, and we quote: "Based on the foregoing provision, the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA Division is not limited to cases involving decisions of the CIR or matters relating to assessments or refunds. In CIR v. Hambrect & Quist Philippines, Inc. , the Court held that the issue of prescription of the CIR's right to collect taxes is covered by the term "other matters" over which the CTA has appellate jurisdiction." xxx xxx xxx There have also been instances where the Supreme Court considers the issuance of a WDL or institution of an action for the collection of taxes, as an implied denial appealable to the Court. 45 The taxpayer's remedy then was to appeal to this Court within thirty (30) days from the date that it was notified of the warrant or collection suit. 46 Relative thereto, Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282, states, in part, as follows: ATICcS "SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal . Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue . . . may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. xxx xxx xxx." (emphases supplied) Thus, petitioner had thirty (30) days from receipt of the said WDL dated September 5, 2017, or from September 6, 2017, 47 within which to file its appeal before this Court. Correspondingly, the filing of the present Petition for Review on October 6, 2017 48 was timely made. At any rate, as will be shown momentarily, this Court finds that the subject tax assessments did not attain finality and that the protest filed by petitioner against the FLD/FANs was filed on time. Respondent's letter dated March 7, 2016, 49 denying, in effect, petitioner's protest to the subject FLD, partly states: "This refers to your letter dated February 15, 2016, which received on the same date, filed on behalf of your client, BRIGHT ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES CORP. , relative to Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) No. 040-B203-12 dated January 12, 2016 covering the deficiency on Income Tax and Value-Added Tax amounting to P2,283,813.38 and P9,331,067.45 respectively, inclusive of statutory increments, for the taxable year 2012, requesting for reinvestigation. x x x. In this case, since the FLD was received by your client's authorized representative, Mr. Mark Anthony J. Mainit, on January 12, 2016, your right to protest has lapsed on February 11, 2016 . Since you failed to file a valid protest within the time prescribed pursuant to the above-stated provision, the assessment became final, executory and demandable. x x x." (emphasis supplied) Petitioner, however, avers that it received the said FLD only on January 15, 2016. 50 The Court agrees with petitioner. In their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, the parties admitted, inter alia , the following facts, viz. : "4. On 15 January 2016, petitioner received the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated 12 January 2016 , wherein respondent assessed petitioner for deficiency income tax and VAT in the total amount of Eleven Million Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Pesos and Eighty Three Centavos (P11,614,880.83), inclusive of interest. Respondent served the FLD at 3/F Farmer's Plaza, Cubao, Quezon City ." 51 (emphasis supplied) With the foregoing admission, the parties have already settled the factual issue as to the date of receipt of the FLD/FANs dated January 12, 2016. In other words, the parties already stipulated and admitted that the date of such receipt is on January 15, 2016. The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a judicial admission. 52 A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. 53 Thus, considering that the date of receipt of the subject FLD/FANs was on January 15, 2016, petitioner had thirty (30) days therefrom or until February 14, 2016 to file its protest, and sixty (60) days thereafter, within which to submit all relevant supporting documents, in accordance with Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, which reads as follows: "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. " (emphasis supplied) It was established in this case that on February 15, 2016, petitioner filed its protest to the FLD/FANs; 54 and that on April 15, 2016, petitioner submitted supporting documents to respondent. 55 However, while it may be true that it is only on February 15, 2016 that the said protest was filed with the BIR, the same is of no moment. This is so because Section 28 (Chapter 7, Book I) of the Executive Order No. 292, series of 1987, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, reads as follows: TIADCc "Section 28. Pretermission of Holiday . Where the day, or the last day, for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a regular holiday or special day, the act may be done on the next succeeding business day." It is to be noted that February 14, 2016 the 30th day within which to file a protest under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, fell on a Sunday. Such being the case and on the basis of the foregoing provision, petitioner's filing of its protest to the FLD on February 15, 2016 (Monday), the next succeeding business day, is considered timely made. Moreover, counting from this latter date, petitioner had until April 15, 2016 to submit all relevant supporting documents in accordance with Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended. Considering that petitioner submitted the said documents to respondent on the said date, the 60-day period was properly observed by petitioner. Noteworthy also is the Court's findings that the subject deficiency tax assessments issued for TY 2012 are void and without any legal effect as these were issued in violation of petitioner's right to due process. We again refer to the earlier quoted provisions of Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, as implemented by Section 3.1.6 of RR No. 12-99, 56 as amended by RR No. 18-2013, 57 which provide as follows: "SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment . 3.1 Mode of procedure in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment: 3.1.1 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) . If after review and evaluation 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 a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed assessment . It shall show in detail, the facts and the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based (see illustration in ANNEX A hereof). 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 Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) shall be issued calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties. If the taxpayer, within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, responds that he/it disagrees with the findings of deficiency tax or taxes, an FLD/FAN shall be issued within fifteen (15) days from filing/submission of the taxpayer's response, calling for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties." (emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing provisions, part of the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment is the issuance and service of the PAN. Moreover, petitioner is given fifteen (15) days from receipt of the PAN within which to respond thereto, before the issuance of the FLD and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) by the BIR. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc., et seq. , 58 the Supreme Court said: " Tax assessments issued in violation of the due process rights of a taxpayer are null and void . While the government has an interest in the swift collection of taxes, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and is n officers and agents cannot be overreaching in their efforts, but must perform their duties in accordance with law, with their own rules of procedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process. The 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, also known as the Tax Code, and revenue regulations allow a taxpayer to file a reply or otherwise submit comments or arguments with supporting documents at each stage in the assessment process. Due process requires the Bureau of Internal Revenue to consider defenses and evidence submitted by the taxpayer and to render a decision based on these submissions. Failure to adhere to these requirements constitutes a denial of due process and taints the administrative proceedings with invalidity. xxx xxx xxx The importance of providing the taxpayer with adequate written notice of his or her tax liability is undeniable. Under Section 228, it is explicitly required 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 59 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 requires the Preliminary Assessment Notice to show in detail the facts and law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based. x x x. xxx xxx xxx The use of the word 'shall' in Section 228 of the [National Internal Revenue Code] and in [Revenue Regulations] No. 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 applies to the Preliminary Assessment Notice, Final Letter of Demand with the Final Assessment Notices, and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment. AIDSTE 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 . x x x under Section 228 of the Tax Code and Section 3.1.2 60 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, the taxpayer is required to respond within 15 days from receipt of the Preliminary Assessment Notice; otherwise, he or she will be considered in default and the Final Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices will be issued . After receipt of the Final Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices, the taxpayer is given 30 days to file a protest, and subsequently, to appeal his or her protest to the Court of Tax Appeals. xxx xxx xxx" (emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements, respondent is mandated to perform his assessment functions in accordance with, and strict adherence to law, implementing rules and regulations as well as rules of procedure, and always with regard to the basic tenets of due process. In case respondent or the BIR fails to observe due process, it shall have the effect of rendering the deficiency tax assessment void, and of no force and effect. In the present case, it is indisputable that petitioner received the PAN dated December 21, 2015 on January 6, 2016. 61 Applying the above-quoted Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, in relation to Section 3.1.1 of RR No. 12-99, as amended by RR No. 18-2013, respondent must give petitioner a period of fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN, or until January 21, 2016, to protest or respond to the PAN. Pursuant to these provisions, it is only after the lapse of the said period that respondent may issue the FLD/FANs, calling for the payment of the assessed deficiency tax liabilities. By prematurely issuing the FLD/FANs on January 12, 2016, 62 without awaiting the lapse of the fifteen (15)-day period, respondent wantonly disregarded the mandatory due process requirement laid down under the above-stated law and rules. In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Yumex Philippines Corp. , 63 the Supreme Court recognized the importance of issuing a PAN ahead of a FAN as well as the opportunity to respond to said PAN as essential requirements integral to a taxpayer's right to due process, and we quote: "Clearly from the afore-quoted provisions, the taxpayer has fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the PAN to respond to the sad n notice. Only after receiving the taxpayer's response or in case of the taxpayer's default can respondent issue the FLD/FAN." Consequently, this Court rules that the subject tax assessments are null and void. It must be emphasized that while taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude. Even as we concede to the inevitability and indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 64 In view of the finding that the subject tax assessments are invalid, it becomes unnecessary for this Court to address the other ancillary issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, the FLD/FANs dated January 12, 2016 for TY 2012, and the WDL dated September 5, 2016, both issued against petitioner, are CANCELLED and SET ASIDE . Consequently, respondent is ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from collecting the said amount embodied in the FLD/FANs dated January 12, 2016. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. and Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, J. , concur. Footnotes 1. Summary of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated August 10, 2018, Docket, p. 234. 2. Paragraph 8.2, Petition for Review, Court Docket, Volume I, pp. 10-23. 3. Exhibit "P-1", Docket, p. 139. 4. Par. 1, Summary of Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket, p. 225. 5. Par. 2, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 225; Exhibit "R-1", BIR Records, p. 35. 6. Par. 3, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, pp. 225 to 226; Exhibit "P-2", Docket, pp. 140 to 144; Exhibit "R-3", BIR Records, pp. 210 to 214. 7. Par. 4, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-3", Docket, pp. 145 to 151; Exhibits "R-4", "R-4-A", "R-4-B", "R-4-C", BIR Records, pp. 219 to 225. 8. Par. 5, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-4", Docket, pp. 152 to 165. 9. Par. 6, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-5", Docket, pp. 166 to 168. 10. Par. 7, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226. 11. Exhibit "P-7", Docket, pp. 169 to 171. 12. Par. 8, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-8", Docket, p. 172; Exhibit "R-7", BIR Records, p. 273. 13. Par. 9, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-9", Docket, p. 173; Exhibit "R-8", BIR Records p. 275. 14. Exhibit "P-10", Docket, pp. 174 to 177. 15. Par. 10, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-11", Docket, p. 178. 16. Docket, pp. 10 to 26. 17. Docket, pp. 91 to 94. 18. Transmittal letter dated April 5, 2018, Docket, p. 106. 19. Notice of Pre-trial Conference dated January 10, 2018, Docket, pp. 95 to 96. 20. Docket, pp. 108 to 109. 21. Docket, p. 120. 22. Docket, pp. 110 to 118. 23. Docket, pp. 216 to 218. 24. Docket, pp. 225 to 232. 25. Docket, pp. 234 to 241. 26. Exhibit "P-26", Docket pp. 123 to 138; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, January 22, 2019, Docket pp. 260 to 262; Exhibit "P-28", Docket pp. 267 to 271; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, May 28, 2019, Docket pp. 281 to 285. 27. Exhibit "P-29", Docket pp. 192 to 200; Exhibit "P-30", Docket pp. 253 to 257; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, July 23, 2019, Docket pp. 289 to 293. 28. Docket, pp. 294 to 304. 29. Docket, pp. 316 to 320. 30. Docket, pp. 329 to 330. 31. Exhibit "R-11", Docket pp. 343 to 347; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, September 29, 2020, Docket pp. 348 to 352. 32. Exhibit "R-10", Docket pp. 357 to 363; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, October 29, 2020, Docket pp. 400 to 404. 33. Docket, pp. 420 to 427. 34. Docket, pp. 461 to 470. 35. Docket, pp. 482 to 484. 36. Docket, pp. 485 to 511. 37. Records Verification dated November 12, 2021 issued by the Judicial Records Division of this Court, Docket, p. 513. 38. Resolution dated December 16, 2021, Docket, p. 515. 39. Issues to be Resolved, JSFI, Docket p. 227. 40. AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. 41. AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 42. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 169225, November 17, 2010. 43. G.R. 162852, December 16, 2004. 44. G.R. No. 258947, March 29, 2022. 45. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. , G.R. No. L-28896, February 17, 1998. 46. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc. , G.R. No. 225809, March 17, 2021. 47. Par. 10, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket p. 226. 48. Docket pp. 10 to 26. 49. Exhibit "R-5", BIR Records p. 252. 50. Par. 3, petitioner's Memorandum , Docket p. 486. Refer also to Exhibit "P-26" (Q/A170), Docket at p. 128. 51. Docket, pp. 225 to 232, at p. 226. 52. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010. 53. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) , G.R. No. 181459, June 9, 2014. 54. Par. 5, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-4", Docket, pp. 152 to 165. 55. Par. 6, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226; Exhibit "P-5", Docket, pp. 166 to 168. 56. SUBJECT: 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 Extrajudicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the code through payment of a Suggested Compromise Penalty. 57. SUBJECT: Amending Certain Sections of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 Relative to the Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment. 58. G.R. Nos. 201398-99 and 201418-19, October 3, 2018. 59. Now Section 3.1.1. 60. Id. 61. Par. 3, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, pp. 225 to 226. Refer also to Exhibit "P-2", Docket, pp. 140 to 144; Exhibit "R-3", BIR Records, pp. 210 to 214. 62. Par. 4, Summary of Admitted Facts, JSFI, Docket, p. 226. Refer also to Exhibit "P-3", Docket, pp. 145 to 151; Exhibits "R-4", "R-4-A", "R-4-B", "R-4-C", BIR Records, pp. 219 to 225. 63. G.R. No. 222476, May 5, 2021. 64. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. BASF Coating + Inks, Phils., Inc. , G.R. No. 198677, November 26, 2014 citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. , G.R. No. L-28896, February 17, 1988. n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "is" should be "its". n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "sad" should be "said".