Total (Phils.) Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NOS. 7898, 7980, and 8008. March 17, 2014.] TOTAL (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION UY , J p : For resolution are petitioner's " MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " filed on August 30, 2013 and " SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION " filed on September 20, 2013, with respondent's " COMMENT/OPPOSITION (Re: Motion for Reconsideration) " also filed on September 20, 2013, seeking the reconsideration of this Court's Decision promulgated on July 24, 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads: " WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing considerations, the present Petitions for Review are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. " In the Motion, petitioner contends that its sales in 2007 in the amount of P1,091,958,783.59 were export sales, the same having been actually exported or sold to entities registered with the Philippine Export Zone Authority (PEZA), Clark Development Corporation (CDC), and Board of Investments (BOI) and hence, these sales should be treated as VAT-zero rated transactions. In support of this contention, petitioner further argues that absent a certification for a specific period does not divest the locator of its entitlement to the incentives, such as the VAT zero-rating of its purchases. According to petitioner, it is the fact of registration and location in a Freeport or economic zone that entitles it to the VAT zero-rating of its purchases. Nevertheless, petitioner attached to the instant Motion and its Supplemental Motion copies of confirmations of registration issued by the PEZA and Certificates of Registration from the CDC. Moreover, petitioner asserts that not all disallowance of petitioner's input tax in the amount of P100,274,122.08 has basis; that the input tax carried over from the previous quarter has been validated; and that on the assumption that there are indeed higher output taxes than input taxes due to disallowances of input taxes, petitioner's claim for input taxes related to zero-rated sales should not be affected. ISDCaT On the other hand, in her Comment/Opposition, respondent avers that this Court correctly ruled that petitioner's properly substantiated input taxes for the year 2007 are not enough to cover its output taxes for the same year; and that it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that it is entitled to the refund sought. THE RULING OF THE COURT The instant Motion and Supplemental Motion lack merit. Only the zero-rated sales of petitioner duly proven during the trial shall be considered in determining its compliance with the requisites in claiming refund or tax credit under the law. Petitioner is of the view that the absence of a certification for a specific period does not divest the locator of its entitlement to the incentives, such as the VAT zero-rating of its purchases. According to petitioner, it is the fact of registration and location in a Freeport or economic zone that entitles it to the VAT zero-rating of its purchases, and thus, the certifications are already proof that these companies are registered and locators of the respective economic zones. We do not agree. In the assailed Decision, We explained the reason for the need to have certifications which cover the period of the refund claim, viz. : ". . . it must be remembered that the period covered by the instant claim is taxable year 2007, and therefore, only the Certifications which are indicative of the fact that the named entities therein are duly registered with the PEZA or BOI or CDC, as the case may be, and only during the effectivity thereof, which must be within the year 2007 , shall be considered valid for purposes of determining petitioner's zero-rated sales for the year 2007. As a corollary, any sale to the above-named entities at the time their respective registration has expire, either fully for the entire year of 2007, or partially after a certain month in 2007, or was not yet effective in the year 2007, shall not be included in the computation of such zero-rated sales for the said year. Circumspection is called for in this instance, since the respective registration with the above-stated government agencies may already have been revoked or suspended, or is not yet effective or is no longer renewed, in the year 2007. It must be emphasized that to be subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, it is crucial that a transaction be classified as an export sale, which in turn is dependent on the requirement that the sale was indeed made to an enterprise, whose registration with any of the said government agencies is already effective or is still in effect. " 1 (Emphasis supplied) TSIDaH Attaching copies of confirmations of registration and certificates of registration in the instant Motion and Supplemental Motion is of no consequence, considering that the same have not been formally offered in evidence during trial. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that " the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. " A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. 2 In Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 3 the Supreme Court said: ". . . the Rules of Court, which is suppletory in quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly Sec. 34 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear that no evidence which has not been formally offered shall be considered . Thus, where the pertinent invoices or receipts purportedly evidencing the VAT paid by Atlas were not submitted, the courts a quo evidently could not determine the veracity of the input VAT Atlas has paid. Moreover, when Atlas likewise failed to submit pertinent export documents to prove actual export sales with due certification from accredited banks on the export proceeds in foreign currency with the corresponding conversion rate into Philippine currency, the courts a quo likewise could not determine the veracity of the export sales as indicated in Atlas' amended VAT return." (Emphases supplied) Under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 1125, this Court is categorically referred to as a court of record. As cases filed before it are litigated de novo , party-litigants shall prove every minute aspect of their cases. 4 Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be given the pieces of evidence submitted by petitioner attached to the instant Motion and Supplemental Motion, as the rules on documentary evidence require that these documents must be formally offered before this Court. 5 In the same vein, We cannot subscribe to petitioner's stance that there is no requirement to validate the input VAT carried over from the previous quarter. Input VAT from the previous quarter must be duly proven. According to petitioner, the taxpayer is required only to validate the input taxes out of which the claim is being made. And if there are any issues or imperfections of the input taxes generated in previous periods, that is a concern to be addressed in those periods and should not affect the amount that was carried over to a subsequent period. Nevertheless, petitioner points to the Independent CPA (ICPA) Report marked as Exhibit "Y" for its 2006 claim in CTA Case No. 7855, and argues that, for purposes of the instant claim, the carry-over from the previous quarter or from the 4th quarter of 2006 had actually been supported by petitioner. cEISAD The contentions of petitioner are untenable. As already pointed out, as cases filed before this Court are litigated de novo , party-litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases. 6 Furthermore, the said ICPA Report should have been offered and identified anew in the instant consolidated cases to be considered by this Court, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Silkair (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 7 viz. : " We quote with approval the disquisition of the CTA En Banc in its Decision dated May 27, 2008 on the non-admission of petitioner's Exhibits 'A,' 'P', 'Q' and 'R', to wit: xxx xxx xxx 'Each and every case is distinct and separate in character and matter although similar parties may have been involved. Thus, in a pending case, it is not mandatory upon the courts to take judicial notice of pieces of evidence which have been offered in other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending in the same court. Evidence already presented and admitted by the court in a previous case cannot be adopted in a separate case pending before the same court without the same being offered and identified anew. The cases cited by petitioner concerned similar parties before the same court but do not cover the same claim. A court is not compelled to take judicial notice of pieces of evidence offered and admitted in a previous case unless the same are properly offered or have accordingly complied with the requirements on the rules of evidence. In other words, the evidence presented in the previous cases cannot be considered in this instant case with being offered in evidence. xxx xxx xxx." (Underscoring Supplied) Except for two (2) transactions, the disallowance of input taxes is proper. Petitioner questions certain disallowances made by this Court in the following items, to wit: TSaEcH Findings 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Total 1. Input tax on P73,286,969.06 P- P5,352,657.00 P- P78,639,626.06 importation of goods supported by IEIRDs without machine validation or BOC/bank ORs 8 2. Input tax on 566,778.86 281,919.36 - - 848,698.22 domestic purchase of goods supported by VAT ORs that are not legible 9 3. Input tax on - - 31,039.38 - 31,039.38 domestic purchase of services supported by VAT OR not issued in the name of petitioner 10 4. Input tax on 2,084,118.39 111,226.85 363,014.92 1,512,788.59 4,071,148.75 domestic purchases of services supported by TIN # ONLY or TIN-V ORs 11 5. Input tax on - - - 19,236.00 19,236.00 domestic purchase of services supported by undated official receipt 12 6. Input tax on 41,681.21 238,577.80 - - 280,259.01 purchases of services wherein the VAT amount was not separately shown in the OR 13 7. Input tax on - 11,342.88 - - 11,342.88 domestic purchase of service supported by a VAT official receipt but with alteration on payor's name 14 8. Overclaimed 1,691.01 1,843,179.22 13,653,191.22 874,710.33 16,372,771.78 input tax 15 TOTAL P75,981,238.53 P2,486,246.11 P19,399,902.52 P2,406,734.92 P100,274,122.08 ============ =========== ============ =========== ============= Petitioner contends as follows: 1. For item no. 1 Although there were no machine validation in the Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs), the documents were all stamped with "Payment Matched", which means that the payments had actually been made. Furthermore, Page 2 of Exhibits "NN-1-c-35" and "NN-1-c-36" would show that the date of release (box 57) was duly filled up; and considering that these were released, the taxes pertinent thereto had actually been paid. Petitioner then concluded that the total amount of P52,420,967.64 (P47,068,311.00 16 and P5,352,656.64) 17 should be allowed. 2. For item no. 2 The original copies of the official receipts are dot matrix print out copies but still legibly printed. The photostatic copies submitted to this Court are still readable particularly on the necessary entries as opposed to the reason for the disallowance made by this Court. 3. For item no. 4 The official receipts with printed TIN-V only should have been considered for the reason that these are also valid indication that the taxpayer is VAT-registered. Thus, the total amount of P3,698,725.07 (consisting of the following: for the 1st quarter, P1,747,895.01; for the 2nd quarter, P367,959.29; for the 3rd quarter, P351,412.56; and for the 4th quarter, P1,495,645.73). IcCDAS 4. For item no. 6 The VAT amount in Exhibits "NN-1-b-192" and "OO-1-b-4" was duly reflected in the VAT official receipts. Hence, the total amount of P89,202.37 (consisting of the following: for the 1st quarter, P10,946.98; 18 and for the 2nd quarter, P78,255.39). 19 5. For item no. 7 This should not be an issue since it is just a mere correction on the payor's name. What is significant is that the official receipt is a VAT document and issued to petitioner. Except for item no. 6, We maintain the said disallowances. As for item no. 1, We are not convinced that a simple stamping of the words "Payment Matched" means that payments have been actually made, since such stamp may mean something else. Neither can We concur that the filling up of the date of release (box 57) is an indication of payment. This is so because it is possible that the subject imported goods have been released without payment of the VAT. Simply put, petitioner's assertions are uncorroborated and self-serving. The convincing proof is still the machine validation of the bank to whom payment was given, or the official receipts of the Bureau of Customs or the pertinent bank. It must be emphasized that the most competent evidence must be adduced and presented to prove the allegations in a complaint, petition, or protest before a judicial court. 20 With regard to item no. 2, We still find that the subject VAT official receipts are not legible. It is noteworthy that if petitioner truly believes that the original copies of the official receipts are legibly printed, it could have easily presented the same for purposes of the instant Motion. Having failed to do so, this Court is not afforded an opportunity to take a second look on the said official receipts, to the detriment of petitioner. As regards item no. 4, Section 4.113-1 of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005 21 is clear. It provides, in part, as follows: "Only VAT-registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word 'VAT' in their invoice or official receipts. Said documents shall be considered as a 'VAT Invoice' or VAT official receipt. All purchases covered by invoices/receipts other than VAT Invoice/VAT Official Receipt shall not give rise to any input tax . " (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Based on the foregoing, purchases supported by invoices or official receipts, wherein the TIN-VAT is not printed thereon, shall not give rise to any input VAT. 22 Such being the case, the input VAT claim supported by "TIN # ONLY" and "TIN-V" official receipts was correctly disallowed. For item no. 6, after taking second look on Exhibits "NN-1-b-192" and "OO-1-b-4", We find that the same reflected the corresponding VAT amount. Nevertheless, the same is of no moment, since, as will be shown later, the output VAT remains significantly higher than the input VAT. HDAECI Lastly, for item no. 7, We cannot simply dismiss the finding of an alteration on an official receipt and consider it as a non-issue. The alleged correction made should be supported or corroborated by other evidence. Without such corroborating evidence, said official receipt becomes questionable as to whether the same was indeed issued in favor of petitioner. The grant of refund or tax credit representing input VAT, attributable to zero-rated sales, must be made only "in proper cases". Invoking the provisions of Section 112 (A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, petitioner opines that there is no requirement to apply the input taxes related to zero-rated sales against output taxes, and only when there is an excess will a refund be allowed. According to petitioner, a taxpayer can claim in the form of refund all input taxes attributable against output taxes. We disagree. Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9337, reads: "SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax. (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. Any VAT-registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales , except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax : Provided, however , That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further , That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods or properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales : Provided, finally , That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales. xxx xxx xxx (C) Period within which Refund or Tax Credit of Input Taxes shall be Made. In proper cases , the Commissioner shall grant a refund or issue the tax credit certificate for creditable input taxes within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the application filed in accordance with Subsection (A) hereof. AaITCH In case of full or partial denial of the claim for tax refund or tax credit, or the failure on the part of the Commissioner to act on the application within the period prescribed above, the taxpayer affected may, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision denying the claim or after the expiration of the one hundred twenty day-period, appeal the decision or the unacted claim with the Court of Tax Appeals. xxx xxx xxx." (Underscoring and emphasis supplied) While it may be true that a reading of the said Section 112 (A) appears to suggest that input VAT, which is attributable to zero-rated sales and " to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax ", may be applied, without any further requirement, for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund, the said provision may not be read or applied in isolation with the other provisions of the VAT law. In Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., etseq. , 23 the Supreme Court said: "A law must not be read in truncated parts; its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. It is the cardinal rule in statutory construction that a statute's clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. , that every part of the statute must be considered together with other parts of the statute and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. In construing a statute, courts have to take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent parts together; ascertain the legislative intent from the whole act; consider each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the statute; and endeavour to make every part effective, harmonious and sensible. " (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the aforequoted Section 112 must still be read in conjunction with Section 110 (B) of the same Code, as last amended by RA No. 9361, provides as follows: "SEC. 110. Tax Credits. xxx xxx xxx (B) Excess Output or Input Tax. If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person . If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: Provided, however , That any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 112 . " (Emphases and underscoring supplied) ASICDH It is clear from the last proviso of the foregoing Section 110 (B) that the refund or credit of " any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person " is " subject to the provisions of Section 112. " Correspondingly, the grant of such refund or credit cannot be confined merely to the provisions of paragraph (A) of Section 112, but must perforce include the whole of Section 112. The term "in proper cases" under Section 112 (C) qualifies the granting of refund under Section 112 (A). Thus, it is not only when the input VAT is attributable to zero-rated sales and the same has not been applied against the output VAT that the grant of refund or tax credit may be made; it must likewise be "proper" or appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, on the basis of the evidence offered and admitted during the trial, it is the finding of this Court that the output VAT liability of petitioner is more than its input VAT credits for the four (4) quarters of taxable year 2007, to wit: 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Total Output tax P667,352,002.44 P717,985,873.95 P756,527,656.46 P772,643,762.97 P2,914,509,295.82 Properly 487,037,713.02 652,772,589.70 675,127,539.66 756,863,731.16 2,571,801,573.54 substantiated input tax per Our Decision dated July 24, 2013 Input tax 10,946.98 78,255.39 - - 89,202.37 reconsidered in this Resolution Output tax still due P180,303,342.44 P65,135,028.86 P81,400,116.80 P15,780,031.81 P342,618,519.91 ============= ============ ============ ============ ============= The first sentence of the aforequoted Section 110 (B) is plain that "(i) f at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-registered person. " Thus, it would be "improper" or inappropriate, if not irregular, to grant a refund of, or issue a tax credit certificate for, input VAT in favor of petitioner where there are still unpaid output VAT for taxable year 2007. In this connection, it must be stressed that Sections 105 and 106 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA 9337, regarding the imposition and collection of output VAT on goods, are clearly obligatory. Said provisions state: "SEC. 105. Persons Liable. Any person who, in the course of trade or business, sells, barters, exchanges, leases goods or properties, renders services, and any person who imports goods shall be subject to the value-added tax (VAT) imposed in Sections 106 to 108 of this Code . xxx xxx xxx SEC. 106. Value-added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. (A) Rate and Base of Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) 24 of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged, such tax to paid by the seller or transferor : . . . xxx xxx xxx." (Emphases and underscoring supplied) STaHIC In other words, the payment of the output VAT by petitioner is undoubtedly imperative. Needless to state, a tax is a mandatory exaction, not a voluntary contribution. 25 Moreover, the liability for taxes cannot be evaded by a transaction constituting a colorable subterfuge. 26 Thus, We cannot tolerate the irresponsible statement of petitioner that " it is entitled to refund of input taxes related to VAT zero-rated sales, regardless of the amount of total input taxes and output taxes . " 27 As a corollary, it must be emphasized that respondent is not authorized to refund taxes as a matter of gratuity. 28 To reiterate, statutes that grant tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Tax refunds in relation to the VAT are in the nature of such exemptions. 29 WHEREFORE , all the foregoing considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, J., concurs. Footnotes 1. Decision dated July 24, 2013, p. 25; Docket, p. 833. 2. Heirs of Pedro Pasag, et al. vs. Spouses Parocha, et al. , G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007. 3. G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008. 4. Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. , G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008. 5. Refer to Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., supra. 6. Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., supra ; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 145526, March 16, 2007; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Mining Corporation , G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005. 7. G.R. No. 184398, February 25, 2010. 8. Exhibits "NN-1-c-31", "NN-1-c-33" to "NN-1-c-36" and "XX-1-c-6". 9. Exhibits "NN-1-a-86" to "NN-1-a-95", "NN-1-a-105", "NN-1-a-151" to "NN-1-a-154", "OO-1-a-86", "OO-1-a-96", "OO-1-a-98", and "OO-1-a-100" to "OO-1-a-105". 10. Exhibit "XX-1-b-280". 11. Exhibits "NN-1-b-29", "NN-1-b-30", "NN-1-b-58", "NN-1-b-288" to "NN-1-b-294", "NN-1-b-375" to "NN-1-b-380", "NN-1-b-469" to "NN-1-b-472", "OO-1-b-3", "OO-1-b-24", "XX-1-b-13" to "XX-1-b-15", "XX-1-b-189", "XX-1-b-234" to "XX-1-b-237", "YY-1-b-20", "YY-1-b-21", "YY-1-b-168", "YY-1-b-169", "YY-1-b-172" to "YY-1-b-177", and "YY-1-b-216". 12. Exhibit "NN-1-b-411". 13. Exhibits "NN-1-b-1", "NN-1-b-2", "NN-1-b-4" to "NN-1-b-7", "NN-1-b-10", "NN-1-b-192", "OO-1-b-1", and "OO-1-b-4". 14. Exhibit "OO-1-b-11". 15. Exhibits "NN-1-b-222", "NN-1-b-247", "OO-1-a-119", "OO-1-b-33", "OO-1-b-36", "XX-1-a-30", "XX-1-a-32", "XX-1-a-180", "XX-1-b-1", "XX-1-b-11", "XX-1-b-23", "XX-1-b-24", "XX-1-b-61", "XX-1-b-75", "XX-1-b-112", "XX-1-b-340", "XX-1-c-8", "XX-1-c-20", "XX-1-c-22", "YY-1-a-18" to "YY-1-a-20", "YY-1-a-211", "YY-1-b-25", "YY-1-b-84", "YY-1-b-110", "YY-1-b-115", "YY-1-b-157", "YY-1-b-262", "YY-1-b-263", "YY-1-b-275", "YY-1-b-301", and "YY-1-c-4". 16. Exhibits "NN-1-c-33" to "NN-1-c-36". 17. Exhibit "XX-1-c-6". 18. Exhibit "NN-1-b-192". 19. Exhibit "OO-1-b-4". 20. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 159490, February 18, 2008. 21. SUBJECT: Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations of 2005. 22. Kepco Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 181858, November 24, 2010. 23. G.R. Nos. 158885 and 170680, October 2, 2009. 24. Increased to twelve percent (12%); Refer to Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 7-2006 dated January 31, 2006. 25. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc. , G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007. 26. Wise & Co., Inc., et al. vs. Meer , G.R. No. 48231, June 30, 1947, citing 61 C.J., 173. 27. Underscoring supplied; Par. 24, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration , p. 10, Docket, p. 860. 28. Lim Co Chui vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. , G.R. No. 23487, February 11, 1925. 29. Panasonic Communication Imaging Corporation of the Philippines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 178090, February 8, 2010.