Sonoma Services, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

THIRD DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9771. July 21, 2020.] SONOMA SERVICES, INC. , petitioner , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION UY , J p : Before this Court is a Petition for Review 1 filed by Sonoma Services, Inc. against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the refund of or issuance of a tax credit certificate for the amount of P5,366,303.57, representing its alleged excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes ("CWT") for the calendar year ending on December 31, 2016. THE FACTS Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office at 3rd Floor, Makati Stock Exchange Building, Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. 2 Petitioner was incorporated with the primary purpose of carrying on and conducting general services business with any party, including the rendering of management and allied services within the limits allowed by law, including office and clerical support services, maintenance services of any kind, or otherwise, to engage in any preservation, maintenance or repair work upon any and every kind of property, to enter into and execute contracts therefore or relating thereto. 3 Petitioner is a registered taxpayer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR"), Revenue Region No. 8, Revenue District Office ("RDO") No. 50 with Tax Identification Number 220-868-954-000. 4 Respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR"), vested under the appropriate laws with authority to carry out all the functions, duties, and responsibilities of said office, including, inter alia , the power to decide, approve, and grant refunds and/or tax credits or overpaid and erroneously paid or collected internal revenue taxes. 5 HESIcT On April 15, 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR, through the Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS), its original/tentative Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for CY 2016. 6 Subsequently on April 18, 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR, through the eFPS, an Amended Annual ITR for CY 2016. 7 On September 8, 2017, petitioner filed with the BIR, RDO No. 50 an administrative claim for refund of excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,303.57. 8 On January 24, 2018, petitioner received a letter from BIR, RDO No. 50, denying petitioner's administrative claim for refund in the amount of P5,366,303.57. 9 On February 13, 2018, petitioner filed with the BIR, RDO No. 50, a request for reconsideration of the denial of its administrative claim for refund of excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016. 10 As of August 1, 2018, respondent has not yet resolved petitioner's request for reconsideration of the denial of its administrative claim for refund of excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016. 11 Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review 12 before this Court on February 22, 2018. Respondent filed his Answer on April 19, 2018, interposing the following special and affirmative defenses: " SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES xxx xxx xxx 2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the tax, which is subject of this case, was erroneously or illegally collected; 3) Taxes paid and collected are presumed to be made in accordance with the laws and regulations, hence, not refundable; 4) It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to show that it has complied with the provision of Section 204 (C) in relation to Section 229 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended; 5) Petitioner's claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount of Five Million Three Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand Three Hundred Three and 57/100 Pesos (P5,366,303.57) representing alleged unutilized creditable withholding taxes for the calendar year 2016 as prior year's excess credits should be denied considering that Petitioner carried it over to the succeeding taxable year. Petitioner cannot get a tax refund and tax credit at the same time for the same excess income taxes paid; 6) Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant, the same partake the nature of exemption from taxation (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ledesma, 31 SCRA 95) and as such, they are looked upon with disfavor (Western Minolco Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 124 SCRA 121) ." 13 caITAC The Pre-Trial Conference was held on July 12, 2018 14 and the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues on August 1, 2018. 15 The same was approved by the Court, and thereby Pre-Trial was deemed terminated in the Resolution dated August 9, 2018, 16 and a Pre-Trial Order was issued on September 10, 2018. 17 During trial, petitioner presented two (2) witnesses, as follows: 1) Krystal E. Gamit, and 2) ICPA Madonna Mia S. Dayego. On November 7, 2018, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence . 18 Respondent filed his Comment (To Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence) with Manifestation 19 on November 12, 2018 interposing no objection to the admission of petitioner's exhibits but without admitting its probative value, materiality, and relevance of the purpose for which said exhibits are offered. Respondent also manifested that since there was no final report submitted by the revenue examiner of petitioner's application for refund, he will not present any evidence in this case. In the Resolutions dated January 15, 2019 20 and May 2, 2019, 21 all of petitioner's documentary evidence were admitted. As directed by the Court, petitioner filed its Memorandum 22 on June 28, 2019, while respondent's Memorandum 23 was filed on June 7, 2019. Thereafter, this case was submitted for decision on July 22, 2019. 24 Hence, this Decision. THE ISSUE As stipulated by the parties, this is the sole issue 25 for resolution in this case, to wit: "Whether or not petitioner is entitled to its claim for refund of or issuance of TCC for its excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016 in the amount of Php5,366,303.57." Petitioner's arguments: Petitioner argues that its excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,303.57 are duly substantiated by documentary evidence. Petitioner presented a Schedule of Creditable Withholding Tax for CY 2016 (Exhibit "P-26") , Summary of CWT Supported by Original Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld at Source (per BIR 2307) (Exhibit "P-27") , and the supporting Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307) (Exhibits "P-27-1 to P-27-31") covering its CWT for CY 2016 in the total amount of P5,366,304.00. It also presented Summary of Income Payments with Creditable Withholding arising from management fees and proceeds from sale of equipment (Exhibit "P-28") and Schedule of Management Fees without CWTs for CY 2016 (Exhibit "P-29") . Petitioner further claims that the income upon which the CWTs being claimed for refund were withheld, was reported as part of the revenues declared in petitioner's Annual ITR and Audited Financial Statements for CY 2016 (Exhibits "P-4" and "P-5" respectively). Petitioner asserts that it did not carry over its excess and unutilized CWTs for CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,303.57 to the succeeding taxable periods and this was not reported as "prior year's excess credits" in petitioner's Annual and Quarterly ITRs for CY 2017 (Exhibit "P-13 to P-18" ). ICHDca Finally, petitioner maintains that the administrative and judicial claims for refund of excess and unutilized CWT's for CY 2016 were filed within the two-year prescriptive period provided in Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the Tax Code. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent counters that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the subject tax was erroneously or illegally collected. Taxes paid and collected are presumed to be made in accordance with the laws and regulations, hence, not refundable. Thus, it is incumbent upon petitioner to show its compliance with Section 204 (C) in relation to Section 229 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended. Allegedly, petitioner carried over to the succeeding table year its excess and unutilized CWT for the CY 2016 as prior year's excess credits and should therefore be denied. Thus, petitioner cannot get a tax refund and a tax credit at the same time for the same excess income taxes paid. THE COURT'S RULING In order that a corporate taxpayer may be entitled to a claim for the refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate representing excess or unutilized creditable withholding tax, the corporate taxpayer-claimant must show compliance with the essential basic requirements set forth under pertinent tax laws and existing jurisprudential pronouncements. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, outlines the remedies that a taxpayer-claimant may opt to exercise, to wit: " SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return . Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor." Based on the foregoing provision, a corporate taxpayer whose income tax payments exceed its tax liability in a given taxable year, can choose between two options: 1) to carry over the excess credit; or 2) to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate, or to claim a cash refund. If the option to carry over the excess credit is exercised, the same shall be irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor. 26 In exercising its option, the corporation must signify in its Annual Corporate Adjustment Return (by marking the option box provided in the BIR Form) its intention either to carry over the excess credit or to claim a refund. The two options are alternative and not cumulative in nature, that is, the choice of one precludes the other. The logic behind the rule is to ease tax, particularly the self-assessment and collection aspects. 27 TCAScE Petitioner opted to be refunded for the alleged excess amount paid for CY 2016. A perusal of petitioner's Annual ITR for CY 2016 28 shows that petitioner had total credits of P13,982,000.00. 29 This consisted of the prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P8,615,696.00, as well as creditable taxes withheld during the year 2016 in the amounts of P5,013,804.00 30 and P352,500.00, 31 or a total of P5,366,304.00. Petitioner claims that its regular corporate income tax (RCIT) due for CY 2016 in the amount of P2,439,214.00 32 was paid using a portion of its prior year's excess credits of P8,615,696.00. 33 This leaves the prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P6,176,482.00 and creditable taxes withheld during CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,304.00 totaling P11,542,786.00 34 unutilized as of December 31, 2016, as shown below: Prior Year's Excess Credit Other than MCIT 8,615,696.00 Less: Tax Due 2,439,214.00 Balance of Prior Year's Excess Credit 6,176,482.00 Add: Creditable Taxes Withheld CY 2016 5,366,304.00 Excess Creditable Taxes Withheld as of December 31, 2016 11,542,786.00 ========== Since petitioner marked the box corresponding to the option "To be Refunded" 35 in its Annual ITR, the CWT for CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,304.00 may be a proper subject of a claim for refund, pursuant to Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Moreover, petitioner's exercise of its option to be refunded is further affirmed by the fact that it only carried over the amount of P6,176,482.00 as the prior year's excess tax credits other than MCIT, in its Amended Annual ITR for CY 2017, 36 which excluded the amount of P5,366,304.00, representing the CWT being claimed for refund. Petitioner complied with legal requirements and jurisprudential pronouncements for the grant of its claim for refund or issuance of a TCC for excess/unutilized CWT. In addition to the exercise of its option under Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, jurisprudence 37 dictates that the taxpayer must satisfy the following conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of creditable withholding income tax, to wit: 1. The claim is filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax; 38 2. The fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; 39 and 3. It is shown on the return of the recipient that the income payment received was declared as party of the gross income. 40 First condition . The first condition is anchored on Sections 204 (C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which read: " SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise/Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes . The Commissioner may xxx xxx xxx (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however , that a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." (Emphasis supplied) cTDaEH " SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or Illegally Collected . No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however , That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Emphasis supplied.) It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the two-year prescriptive period within which to claim a refund commences to run, at the earliest, on the date of the filing of the adjusted final return. 41 This must be so because it is only on such date when it can be finally ascertained if the taxpayer still has to pay additional income tax or if he is entitled to a refund of overpaid income tax. 42 In this case, petitioner electronically filed its original AITR for CY 2016 on April 15, 2017, with Reference No. 17021700019667025. 43 Counting from this date, petitioner had until April 15, 2019 within which to file its administrative claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate, and to institute the corresponding judicial action. A perusal of the records show that petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund before BIR Revenue Region No. 8, Revenue District No. 50-South Makati on September 8, 2017, 44 and the instant Petition for Review 45 was filed before this Court on February 22, 2018. Clearly, both the administrative and the judicial claims were filed within the two-year prescriptive period provided by law. Second and third conditions . The basis for the second and third conditions is Section 2.58.3 (B) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, 46 as amended, to wit: " SECTION 2.58.3. Claim for Tax Credit or Refund . xxx xxx xxx (B) Claims for tax credit or refund of any creditable income tax which was deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course only when it is shown that the income payment has been declared as party of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the withholding tax statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom ." (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine National Bank , 47 it was held that the certificates of creditable taxes withheld, showing the amount deducted and withheld from its income in support of the claim for tax refund, constitutes competent and conclusive evidence of payment and remittance to the BIR of the withheld taxes on the taxpayer's income, to wit: " The certificate of creditable tax withheld at source 48 is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld . 49 It is not necessary for the person who executed and prepared the certificate of creditable tax withheld at source to be presented and to testify personally to prove the authenticity of the certificates. 50 In Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals , 51 this court declared that a certificate is complete in the relevant details that would aid the courts in the evaluation of any claim for refund of excess creditable withholding taxes : cSaATC xxx xxx xxx Thus, upon presentation of a withholding tax certificate complete in its relevant details and with a written statement that it was made under the penalties of perjury, the burden of evidence then shifts to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to prove that (1) the certificate is not complete; (2) it is false; or (3) it was not issued regularly. Petitioner's posture that respondent is required to establish actual remittance to the Bureau of Internal Revenue deserves scant consideration. Proof of actual remittance is not a condition to claim for a refund of unutilized tax credits. Under Sections 57 and 58 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, it is the payor-withholding agent, and not the payee-refund claimant such as respondent, who is vested with the responsibility of withholding and remitting income taxes (Emphasis supplied)." Thus, petitioner's compliance with the second condition may be shown merely by presenting the pertinent certificates of creditable tax withheld at source, which are complete in their relevant details and with a written statement that they were made under the penalties of perjury. In this case, in order to prove the fact of withholding, petitioner presented Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307) duly issued to it by various withholding agents for CY 2016, reflecting a CWT of P5,365,000.00 and P1,303.57 on Management fees of P35,900,000.00 and Proceeds from Sale of Equipment of P65,178.57, respectively, to wit: CHTAIc Exhibit Period Payor/ Withholding Agents Income Payments Tax Withheld Management Fees P-27-1 1st Qtr Corullon Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-2 3rd Qtr Corullon Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-3 4th Qtr Corullon Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-4 1st Qtr FBC Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-5 3rd Qtr FBC Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-6 4th Qtr FBC Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-7 1st Qtr FBC Steps Reality, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-8 3rd Qtr FBC Steps Reality, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-9 1st Qtr Fercat Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-10 3rd Qtr Fercat Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-11 4th Qtr Fercat Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-12 1st Qtr Gilmon Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-13 3rd Qtr Gilmon Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-14 4th Qtr Gilmon Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-15 1st Qtr Gracie Square Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-16 3rd Qtr Gracie Square Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-17 4th Qtr Gracie Square Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-18 1st Qtr JZA Artworks, Inc. 500,000.00 75,000.00 P-27-19 3rd Qtr JZA Artworks, Inc. 250,000.00 37,500.00 P-27-20 4th Qtr JZA Artworks, Inc. 250,000.00 37,500.00 P-27-21 1st Qtr Mermac, Incorporated 2,950,000.00 442,500.00 P-27-22 3rd Qtr Mermac, Incorporated 2,950,000.00 442,500.00 P-27-23 1st Qtr Reinosa Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-24 3rd Qtr Reinosa Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-25 4th Qtr Reinosa Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-26 1st Qtr San Puente Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-27 3rd Qtr San Puente Holdings, Inc. 1,850,000.00 277,500.00 P-27-28 4th Qtr San Puente Holdings, Inc. 300,000.00 45,000.00 P-27-29 1st Qtr Steps Dance Center, Inc. 200,000.00 20,000.00 P-27-30 3rd Qtr Steps Dance Center, Inc. 200,000.00 20,000.00 Subtotal Management Fees 35,900,000.00 5,365,000.00 Proceeds from Sale of Equipment P-27-31 2nd Qtr Mermac, Incorporated 65,178.57 1,303.57 GRAND TOTAL 35,965,178.57 5,366,303.57 =========== =========== Verification of the said certificates reveal that they are respectively complete in their relevant details, with a written statement that they were made under the penalties of perjury. Thus, petitioner has shown compliance with the second condition, i.e. , the establishment of the fact of withholding. Anent the third condition, petitioner is required to show in its return that the income payment received was declared as part of its gross income. These are Our findings, to wit: Management Fees An examination of the evidence presented shows that petitioner reported management fees of P60,500,000.00 per 2016 Statement of Comprehensive Income 52 and 2016 Annual Income Tax Return 53 as compared to Income Payments per Summary of Creditable Withholding Taxes-Management Fees amounting to P35,900,000.00. The difference of P24,600,000.00 is alleged by the petitioner to be Income Payments on Management Fees from payors who are not required to withhold taxes on management fees, broken down as follows: Management Fees per Amended ITR and AFS P60,500,000.00 Income Payments per Summary of CWT-Management Fee 35,900,000.00 Income Payments Without CWT-Management Fee P24,600,000.00 With regard, to the relevant management fees subject of this claim for refund, evidence shows that management fees amounting to P35,900,000.00, relating to the claimed CWT of P5,365,000.00, are properly supported by official receipts (ORs) with corresponding BPI validated deposit slips 54 and can be traced to its Cash Receipts Book (CRB), 55 as well as in the general ledger under Administration Fees 56 for the CY 2016. In addition, the foregoing are also supported by the submission of Management Service Agreements 57 for the subject management fees. As for the Management Fees not subjected to CWT, petitioner validates its assertion, by presenting a schedule of Management Fees Without Creditable Withholding Taxes of P24,600,000.00, 58 whose individual amounts can be traced to the corresponding Official Receipts (ORs) and BPI validated deposit slips, 59 and to the Cash Receipts Books (CRB). 60 Proceeds from Sale of Equipment With regard to the proceeds from the sale of equipment amounting to P65,178.57, with corresponding CWT of P1,303.57, the same was supported by an official receipt, with BPI validated deposit slip, 61 that can be traced to its Cash Receipts Book, 62 2016 ITR, as well as in its 2016 Statement of Cash Flows. 63 In addition, the same was properly recorded in the General Ledger under "Gain/Loss on Sale of Equipment." 64 Based on the foregoing findings, petitioner was able to sufficiently establish that the income related to the CWT being claimed for refund was included and reported in the ITR and in the audited financial statements of the petitioner for the CY 2016, in compliance with the third requisite. EATCcI Accordingly, petitioner has sufficiently proven its entitlement to a refund or issuance of a TCC in its favor, for unutilized excess CWT for CY 2016 in the amount of P5,366,303.57. WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND OR TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of FIVE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THREE PESOS AND FIFTY SEVEN CENTAVOS (P5,366,303.57) , representing its excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 24. 2. Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Admitted Facts, par. 2, Docket Vol. 1, p. 282. 3. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 3, Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 282 to 283. 4. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 4, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 5. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 5, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 6. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 6, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 7. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 7, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 8. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 8, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 9. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 9, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 10. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 10, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 11. JSFI, Admitted Facts, par. 11, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 283. 12. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 24. 13. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 101 to 103. 14. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 279 to 280. 15. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 282 to 288. 16. Docket, Vol. 1, p. 313. 17. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 320 to 329. 18. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 366 to 384. 19. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 612 to 613. 20. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 618 to 620. 21. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 632 to 634. 22. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 647 to 667. 23. Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 639 to 644. 24. Docket, Vol. 2, p. 671. 25. Issue, JSFI, Docket, Vol. 1, p. 284. 26. Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 176290, September 21, 2007. 27. Republic of the Philippines vs. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation , G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015. 28. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 413 to 421. 29. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 419, Schedule 7, Line 12. 30. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 419, Schedule 7, Line 5. 31. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 419, Schedule 7, Line 6. 32. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 414, Line 16. 33. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 419, Schedule 7, Line 1. 34. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 414, Line 20. 35. Exhibit "P-4", Docket, Vol. 2, p. 414, Line 21. 36. Exhibit "P-14", Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 553 to 561, at 559, Schedule 7, Line 1. 37. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation) , G.R. No. 188016, January 14, 2015; Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. Nos. 155682, March 27, 2007; and United International Pictures AB vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 168331, October 11, 2012. 38. Sections 204 (C) and 229, NIRC of 1997; Jose C. Vitug and Ernesto D. Acosta, Tax Law and Jurisprudence, 329 (2006), citing Gibb vs. Collector , 107 Phil. 230 (1960). 39. Section 2.58.3 (B) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-98. 40. Id. ; Calamba Steel Center, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 151857, April 28, 2005. 41. ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Court of Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991. 42. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales, Inc., et al. , G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992. 43. Exhibit "P-3", Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 396 to 404, at 397. 44. Exhibit "P-10", Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 497 to 506. 45. Docket, Vol. 1, pp. 10 to 20. 46. SUBJECT: Implementing Republic Act No. 8424, "An Act Amending the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended," relative to the Withholding on Income subject to the Expanded Withholding Tax and Final Withholding Tax, Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation, Withholding of Creditable Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes. 47. G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014. 48. Now BIR Form No. 2307. 49. Citing Sec. 10 of Revenue Regulations No. 6-85, as amended by Revenue Regulations No. 12-94, which provides as follows: Sec. 10. Claim for Tax Credit or Refund . (a) Claims for Tax Credit or Refund of income tax deducted and withheld on income payments shall be given due course only when it is shown on the return that the income payment received has been declared as party of the gross income and the fact of withholding is established by a copy of the Withholding Tax Statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom . (Emphasis supplied) Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals , 913 Phil. 148, 155 (2005) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division]. 50. Citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation , G.R. No. 179260, April 2, 2014 [Per J. Perez, Second Division]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Philippines) Operations Corporation , G.R. No. 185728, October 16, 2013 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division]; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mirant (Philippines) Operations Corporation , G.R. No. 171742, June 15, 2011 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. 51. 548 Phil. 32 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]. 52. Exhibit "P-5," Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 456 to 481, at 460. 53. Exhibit "P-4," Docket, Vol. 2, p. 416, Schedule 1, Line 6. 54. Exhibits "P-28-1-1" to "P-28-1-30." 55. Exhibits "P-28-2(1/13)" to "P-28-2(13/13)." 56. Exhibit "P-31-1." 57. Exhibits "P-32-1-1" to "P-32-11-1." 58. Exhibit "P-29." 59. Exhibit "P-30-1" to "P-30-30." 60. Exhibits "P-28-2(1/13)" to "P-28-2(13/13)." 61. Exhibit "P-28-1-31." 62. Exhibit "P-28-2(5/13)." 63. Exhibit "P-5," Docket, Vol. 2, pp. 456 to 481, at 462, 473 to 474, Note 7. 64. Exhibit "P-31-5."