Special Third Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
CTA Case No. 8149
-versus- Members:
Bautista, Chairperson
Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated:
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent. JUN 2 ~ 2013
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~~ - <€· ·Tr-x-·
DECISION
COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,J.:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves a Petition for Review filed by petitioner

Liquigaz Philippines Corporation on August 16, 2010 pursuant
to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of
1997, as amended, in relation to Section 7(a)(2) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended, and Section 3(a)(2) of Rule 4 of
the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA).
Petitioner appeals the Formal Letter of Demandl (FLD)

dated October 16, 2009 and Assessment Notices (FAN) Nos. IT-
06-000232 IT-06-000243 VT -06-00027 4 WE-06-000535 and
' ' ' '
WC-06-00033 6 dated October 16, 2009 issued by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) Large Taxpayers Service, assessing f
1
Exhibit " E", docket, pp. 564 to 566; Exhibit " 8", BIR Records, pp. 5789 to 5794.
2
Exhibit "9", BIR Records, p. 5788.
3
Exhibit"IO", BI R Records, p. 5787.
4
Exhibit " II ", BIR Record s, p. 5786.
5
Exhibit " 12", BIR Records, p. 5785.
6
Exhibit " 13", BlR Records, p. 5784.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 2 of 47
petitioner for alleged deficiency tax liabilities, inclusive of

interest and compromise penalties, for the taxable year ending
December 31, 2006, consisting of:
Compromise
Tax Type Basic Interest Penalty_ Total
Income Tax p 189 ,6 51 ,383. 69 f' 96,540 ,348.19 f' 50,000.00 f' 286 ,241 ,731.88
No inventory list 25 ,000.00 25 ,000.00
Value-Added Tax 17,986,9 5 7. 82 9 ,993 ,849.44 50 ,000.00 28,030,807 .26
WT-Expanded 4, 468 ,07 4. 56 2,494 ,776 .9 7 2 5 ,000.00 6 ,987 ,851.53
WT -Compensation 6 ,010 , 12 1.77 3 ,355,788 .54 50 ,000 .00 9 ,415 ,910 .31
Total 1'2 18,116,537.84 Pl12,384,763.14 p 200,000.00 P330, 701,300.98
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitio ner Liquigaz Philippines Corporation is a

corporation c! u ly organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of Lhe Republic of the Philippines. It is registered
with the BIR with Taxpayer Identification No. 004-735-924-
000. Its prin cipal office is situated in 3/F NOL Tower,
Commerce /\ven ue, Madrigal Business Park, Alabang,
Muntinlup a C ity.7
Responden t is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

(CIR) who w;1s duly appointed and is empowered to perform
the duties or her o1Iice, including, among others , the power to
decide, ca ncel and abate tax liabilities pursuant to Section
204(B) of t he NIRC of 1997, as amended. She holds office at
the BIR Nat ion al Office Building, Agham Road , Diliman,
Quezon Cit_/ .
On April 16, 2007 , petitioner filed with the BIR its

Annu c11 Corpo rate Income Tax Return (ITR) (BIR Form No .
1702) for th e taxable year ending December 31 , 2006 .8
For tc1x:1 blc year ending December 31, 2006, petitioner

also fi led its Q u a rterly VAT Returns (BIR Form No. 2550Q) and
Month lv Pem itt.ance Return of Creditable Income Taxes
Withhel d ( l~xp an d e d) (BIR Form No. 1601-E), and its Monthly
Remittance Re turn of Income Taxes Withheld on
Compensa t io11 (f3IR Form No . 1601-C) on the following dates: j
7
Par. 3, J0it1t S tip 11: :11 t<'l l of Fa cts and Iss ue, docket, p. 298.
8
Exhi bit .. ,, ·, doc ke t. pp . 6<)6 to 702.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 3 of 47
Quarter Date of Filing of BIR Form No. 2550Q

First Quarter of 2006 August 23, 20079
Second Quarter of 2006 July 28, 200510
Third Quarter of 2006 August 23, 200711
Fourth Quarter of 2006 August 22, 200712
Month Date of Filing of BIR Date of Filing of BIR

Form No. 1601-E Form No. 1601-C
January 2006 February 13, 200613 February 10, 200614
February 2006 March 10, 200615 March 10, 200616
March 2006 April11, 200617 April 11, 200618
April 2006 May 11, 200619 May 10, 200620
May 2006 June 13, 200621 June 13, 200622
June 2006 July 10, 200623 July 11, 200624
July 2006 August 11, 200625 August 10, 200626
August 2006 September 8, 200627 September 8, 200628
September 2006 October 11, 200629 October 11, 200630
October 2006 November 10, 200631 November 10, 200632
November 2006 December 11, 200633 December 11, 200634
December 2006 January 12 , 200735 January 12, 200736
On August 31, 2007, the BIR issued Letter of Authority

(LOA) No. 2001-000409753 7 , authorizing Revenue Officers
Rosario A. Arriola, Ma. Catalina G. Benedicta and Larah N.
Vito of the Large Taxpayers Audit and Investigation Division II
(LTAID II) to examine petitioner's books of accounts and other
accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period
covering January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006./--
9
Exhibit "Z", docket, pp. 734 to 735 .
10
Exhibit "AA'', docket, pp. 736 to 737.
11
Exhibit "BB", docket, pp. 738 to 739.
12
Exhibit "CC", docket, pp. 740 to 741.
13
Exhibit "PP", docket, p. 786.
14
Exhibit "QQQ", docket, p. 874.
15
Exhibit "QQ", docket, p. 788.
16
Exhibit " RRR", docket, p. 876.
17
Exhibit " RR", docket, p. 790.
18
Exhibit "SSS", docket, p. 878.
19
Exhibit "SS", docket, p. 792.
20
Exhibit "UUU", docket, p. 882 .
21
Exhibit "TT", docket, p. 794.
22
Exhibit "VVV", docket, p. 884.
23
Exhibit "UU", docket, p. 796.
24
Exhibit "WWW", docket, p. 886
25
Exhibit "VV", docket, p. 798.
26
Exhibit "XXX", docket, p. 888.
27
Exhibit "WW", docket, p. 800.
28
Exhibit "YYY", docket, p. 890.
29
Exhibit "XX", docket, p. 802.
30
Exhibit "ZZZ", docket, p. 892.
31
Exhibit "YY", docket, p. 805.
32
Exhibit "AAAA", docket, p. 894.
33
Exhibit "ZZ", docket, p. 807.
34
Exhibit "BBBB", docket, p. 896.
35
Exhibit "AAA", docket, p. 809.
36
Exhibit "CCCC", docket, p. 898.
37
Exhibit "B", docket, p. 517; Exhibit" I", BIR Records, p. 5372.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 4 of 47
On August 27, 2009, respondent issued a Notice of

Informal Conference and Details of Discrepancies, which were
received by petitioner on August 28, 2009.38
On September 28, 2009, respondent issued a Preliminary

Assessment Notice (PAN) and Details of Discrepancies, which
were received by petitioner on the same date .39
On October 20, 2009, petitioner received the FLD 40 dated

October 16, 2009 and FAN Nos. IT-06-00023, IT-06-00024,
VAT-06-00027, WE-06-00053, and WC-06-00033 dated
October 16, 2009, issued by the BIR Large Taxpayers Service,
assessing petitioner for alleged deficiency tax liabilities,
inclusive of interest and compromise penalties, for the taxable
year ending December 31, 2006.
On November 19, 2009, petitioner filed its protest letter

dated November 19, 2009 against the FLD and the FAN with
BIR LTAID 11.41
On November 24, 2009, a Tax Verification Notice (TVN)

was issued for the reinvestigation of petitioner's deficiency tax
liabilities for the taxable year ending December 31, 2006,
pursuant to petitioner's protest letter dated November 19,
2009. Petitioner received said TVN on November 27, 2009. 42
On January 18, 2010, petitioner submitted to BIR LTAID

II documents in support of its protest letter.43
Since no decision was issued by respondent on

petitioner's protest letter, petitioner filed the instant Petition
for Review docketed as CTA Case No. 8149 on August 16,
2010.44 ~
38
Par. 6, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 299; Exhibits "C" and "C-1 ", docket, pp. 518 to
533 ; Exhibit "6", BIR Records, pp. 5646 to 5677.
39
Par. 7, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 299; Exhibit " D", docket, pp. 534 to 563; Exhibit
"7", BIR Records, pp. 5720 to 5736.
40
Exhibit "E", docket, pp. 564 to 566.
41
Exhibit " F", docket, pp. 594 to 617; Par. 16, Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issue, docket, p. 301.
42
Exhibit "G", docket, p. 656; Par. 18, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 301.
43
Exhibit "H", docket, pp. 657 to 659; Par. 17, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 301.
44
Pars. 20 and 21, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 301.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 5 of 47
On September 2 0 , 2010, respondent filed her Answer4 5 to

th e Petition for Review and raised the following special and
affirmative defenses:
"7. Respondent adopts the abovementioned

admissions and denials as part of her special and affirmative
defenses.
Respondent's right to issue the

necessa~ assessr.nents against
petitioner has not yet prescribed
8. Contrary to petitioner's allegations, respondent's

right to assess petitioner has not yet prescribed.
9. Under Section 2.58 (C) of Revenue Regulations (RR)

2-98, as amended by RR 3 -2002 , a taxpayer is required to
file on or before March 0 1 of the following year in which
payments were made, an Annual Information Return of
Creditable Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded)/Income
Payments Exempt from Withholding Tax (BIR Form No.
1604-E) and on or before January 31 of the said year, an
Annual Information Return of Income Taxes Withheld on
Compensation and Final Withholding Taxes (BIR Form No.
1604-CF).
10. As part of the Annual Information Returns (BIR

Form Nos. 1604-E/ 1604-CF), a taxpayer is also required to
submit its manually prepared alphabetical list of employees
and list of payees who are recipients of income payments
subjected to creditable and final withholding taxes, otherwise
known as the Alphalists, on the same due dates mentioned
in the foregoing paragraph.
11. A taxpayer shall also be allowed to make its

adjustments at the end of the year, which is a process done
for the proper determination of its excess credits that will be
allowed as deductions against their income tax dues for the
taxable quarters/years immediately succeeding the taxable
quarters/ years.
12. Further, as provided under Section 77(B) of the

National Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, a
corporate taxpayer is required to file its Annual Income Tax
Return (Final Adjustment Return) on or before the fifteenth
(15th) day of April, or on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of
the fourth (4th) month following the close of the fiscal year,
as the case may be. ~
45
Answer, docket, pp. 257 to 270.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 6 of 47
13. It must be noted that petitioner's tax deficiencies

in its expanded withholding tax and withholding tax on
compensation were computed by comparing the amount
shown in its Annual Income Tax Return versus the amount
reflected in the Alphalists.
14. On the other hand, petitioner's Value-Added Tax

(VAT) deficiencies were also computed based on petitioner's
taxable sales as reported in its Annual Income Tax Return.
15. In which case, the prescriptive period provided

under Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) of 1997 should only run from petitioner's actual
submission of the foregoing documents, since petitioner's
corresponding deficiency taxes were only determined upon
respondent's examination of said submitted documents.
Respondent's Formal Letter of

Demand and Final Assessment
Notice (FAN) is valid
16. Respondent negates petitioner's allegation that

the Formal Letter of Demand and FAN are null and void for
being arbitrary, erroneous and devoid of factual and legal
basis and lack of procedural due process.
17. As shown in respondent's Formal Letter of Demand

and FAN, petitioner's deficiency taxes were computed based
on the following provisions of the law:
Tax Deficiencies Basis Amount

Income Tax Sections 32, 44(A), 34(K), P286,266, 731.88
34(A)(1)(b) of the NIRC of
1997, as amended
Value-Added Tax Section 106 of the NIRC of 28,030,807.26
1997, as amended
Expanded Section 57(B) of the NIRC 6,987,851.53
Withholding Tax of 1997, as amended
Withholding Tax on Sections (24)A(1), 79 & 80 9,415,910.31
Compensation of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended
Total P330,701 ,300.98
18. In the case of Gerry Sevilla, Et Al us. CIR, the

Honorable Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), ruled that:
'The p hrase in writing under Section 228 does

not exclusively mean written words. Writing consists
of letters, word s, or numbers, or their equivalent, set
down by handwriting, typewriting, printing,
photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse,
mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of J
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 7 of 47
data compilation (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth

Edition, page 1609) . Indubitably, figures are also
writings and if the numerical presentation is
understandable enough, then there is no reason why
we should automatically reject the same as adequate
compliance with the law.'
19 . Further, the CTA en bane ruled in the case of

Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. us. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue:
'The simple meaning of procedural due process

is that a party to a case must be given sufficient
opportunity to be heard. Its very essence is to allow all
parties the opportunity to present evidence. In
administrative cases, the requirement of due process
is the right to a hearing, including the right of the
party interested or affected to present his own case
and submit evidence to support his allegation.'
In which case, the requirement of procedural due

process has been clearly provided to petitioner as evidenced
by respondent's issuance of the Notice of Informal
Conference and Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) before
it issued the Formal Letter of Demand and FAN.
20. Moreover, Annex A was also attached m

respondent's assessment to explain how the individual
amounts were obtained and arrived at, to wit:
Income Tax
a. Unrecorded Sales on Undeclared Petron Purchases

- P1,049, 152.37
The amount represents the gross income on

undeclared sales ansmg from the unrecorded
purchases from Petron Corp. as a result of the
matching of reported purchases per taxpayer's record
and the declared sales of Petron Corp., hence,
assessed as undeclared income subject to income tax
pursuant to the provisions of Section 32 of the
National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to Section
44(A) of the same Tax Code, as amended.
b. Overclaimed Purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk

- P2,514,322.72
The amount represents discrepancy as a result

of matching of data of Asian Angle Konstruk's sale to ~
DECISION
CfA CASE NO. 8149
Page 8 of 47
Liquigaz per AITEID as compared to the amount of

purchases declared by Liquigaz from Asian Angle
Konstruk, hence, an overstatement of purchases
amounting to P2,514,332.72 was assessed pursuant
to Section 32 of the National Internal Revenue Code,
as amended.
c. Income Payments not subjected to Expanded

Withholding Tax- P344,537 ,452. 75
The above amount represents income payments

not subjected to expanded withholding tax, hence,
disallowed pursuant to Section 34(K) of the NIRC, as
implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 2-98.
d. Salaries and Wages not subjected to Withholding

Tax- P18,781,630.53
The above amount represents income payments

not subjected to expanded withholding tax, hence
disallowed pursuant to Section 34(K) of the NIRC, as
implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 2-98.
e. Unsupported Bad Debts Expense- P8,431,934.00
The above amount represents unsupported bad

debts, hence, disallowed pursuant to Section
34(A)(l)(b) of the NIRC, as amended.
f. Unrecorded Sales on Importation- P55,614,853.82

importation as a result of the matching of reported
importation per taxpayer's record and the importation
data furnished by the Bureau of Customs to the
AITEID-BIR, hence, assessed as undeclared income
subject to income tax pursuant to the provisions of
Section 32 of the National Internal Revenue Code, in
relation to Section 44(A) of the same Tax Code, as
amended.
g. Overclaimed Importation- P11 ,892,375.63
The amount represents discrepancy as a result

of matching of reported importation per taxpayer's
record and the importation data furnished by the
Bureau of Customs to AITEID-BIR, hence, assessed ~
DECISION
CfA CASE NO. 8149
Page 9 of 47
pursuant to Section 32 of the National Internal

Revenue Code, as amended.
h. Unsupported Creditable Tax Withheld at Source -

P4,582,506.19
The above amount represents creditable

Withholding Tax which are unsupported and out of
period, hence, disallowed and assessed pursuant to
Section 58(B) of the NIRC, as amended.
i. Compromise Penalty on Non Submission of

Inventory List- P25,000 .00
The taxpayer failed to submit its Inventory List

in violation of the provision of Section 244 and 245,
in relation to Sections 5 and 6, as implemented by
Revenue Memorandum Order 19-2007.
j. Sales to PSPC not subjected to Output Tax -

P85,946, 167.89
Verification disclosed that sales to PSPC per

creditable withholding tax at source (BIR Form 2307)
versus Summary List of Sales was understated by
P85 ,946, 167.89, hence, assessed as undeclared
income subject to income tax pursuant to Section 32
of the NIRC, as amended.
Value-Added Tax
a . Unrecorded Sales on Undeclared Petron Purchases

- P1,049, 152.37

purchases from Petron Corp. as a result of the
matching of reported purchases per taxpayer's record
and the declared sales of Petron Corp., hence,
subjected to output tax pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
b. Sales to PSPC not subjected to Output Tax -

P85,946,167.89
Verification disclosed that sales to PSPC per

creditable withholding tax at source (BIR Form 2307)
versus Summary List of Sales was understated by t
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 10 of 47
P85,946, 167.89, hence, assessed pursuant to Section

106 of the NIRC, as amended.
c. Income not subjected to Output Tax

P4,418,775.00
The amount represents the discrepancy

between your declared taxable sales per income tax
return and taxable sales per VAT returns, hence,
subjected to output tax pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Internal Revenue Code.
d. Unrecorded Sales on Underclaimed Importation -

P55,614,853.52

importation as a result of the matching of reported
importation per VAT returns and the importation data
furnished by the Bureau of Customs to the AITEID-
BIR, hence, subject to output tax pursuant to Section
106 of the NIRC, as amended.
e. Disallowed Input Tax on Local Purchases
i. Asian Angle Konstruk Purchases

P339, 149.99
The above amount represents input taxes

claimed from overclaimed purchases, hence,
disallowed pursuant to Section 110 of the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
f. Disallowed Input Tax on Importations- P4,333.83
The above amount represents input tax from

overclaimed importation, hence, disallowed pursuant
to Section 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code,
as amended.
Withholding Tax
a. Expanded- P4,468,074.56
Income payments subject to creditable

withholding tax under Revenue Regulations No. 2-98
and 17-2003 were identified in order to ascertain the
correctness of the amount withheld and remitted. The
result of such examination and verification revealed /
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 11 of 47
that the subject taxpayer is still liable to pay basic

deficiency expanded withholding tax amounting to
P4,468,74.56 (exclusive of increments), pursuant to
Section 57(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code.
b. Withholding Tax on Compensation

P6,010,121.77
Reconciliation of the claimed salaries and

wages as against the submitted alphalist disclosed
compensation not subjected to withholding tax. The
result of such examination and verification revealed
that the taxpayer is still liable to pay basic
withholding tax on compensation tax amounting to
P6,010,121.77 (exclusive of increments) pursuant to
Section 24(A)(1), 79 and 80 of the National Internal
Revenue Code.
21. Based on the foregoing, respondent avers that

the subject assessment is in accordance with Section 228
of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Had respondent not
complied with this provision, i.e. specifying the law and
the facts on which the assessment is made, petitioner
could not have exhaustively explained in its protest letter
its objections against respondent's Formal Letter of
Demand and FAN.
22. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bank of the Philippine
Islands states that:
'Tax assessments by tax exammers are

presumed correct and made in good faith. The
taxpayer has the duty to prove otherwise. In the
absence of proof of any irregularities in the
performance of duties, an assessment duly made by a
Bureau of Internal Revenue examiner and approved
by his superior officers will not be disturbed. All
presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax
assessments."' (Citations omitted)
On September 22, 2010, this Court issued a Notice of

Pre-Trial Conference 4 6, notifying the parties that the case is set
for pre-trial conference on October 22, 2010 and directing the
parties and their respective counsels to be present at the pre-
trial and to file with this Court their respective Pre-Trial Briefs
at least three (3) days before the date of pre-trial. ~
46
Docket, p. 273 .
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 12 of 47
On October 13, 2010, petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief47 ;

while respondent filed her Pre-Trial Brief48 on October 18,
2010.
During the pre-trial proceedings held on November 19,

2010 , this Court gave the counsel for petitioner a period of
twenty (20) days from November 19, 2010 or until December 9 ,
2010 within which to submit the Joint Stipulation of Facts
and Issues. 49
On December 15, 2010 , the parties submitted their Joint

Stipulation of Facts and Issue.so
On January 24 , 2011 , this Court issued the Pre-Trial

Ordersl , summarizing the facts and issues stipulated by the
parties, the evidence to be presented by the parties and the
hearing dates, and stating that the pre-trial is deemed
terminated.
During trial, the parties presented and formally offered

their respective witnesses and documentary evidence in
support of their respective claims and contentions. The case
was submitted for decision on September 14, 201252 , taking
into consideration the Memorandum [For the Petitioner)53 filed
on August 16, 2012 and respondent's Memorandum 54 filed on
September 5, 2012.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The parties submitted the following issuesss for this

Court's resolution:
1. Whether or not the right of the CIR to issue the FLD

and the FAN against petitioner has already prescribed. 1--
47
Docket, pp. 274 to 284.
48
Docket, pp. 285 to 293 .
49
Minutes of the November 19,2010 Pre-Trial Proceedings, docket, p. 297.
50
Docket, pp. 298 to 303 .
51
Docket, pp. 3 19 to 326.
52
Resolution dated September 14,201 2, docket, p. 1497.
53
Docket, pp. 1384 to 1453 .
54
Docket, pp. 1463 to 1495.
55
Part II , Stipulation of Issues, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 302.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 13 of 47
2. Whether or not the assailed FLD and FAN issued by

respondent against petitioner is valid.
DISCUSSION /RULING
The Court's jurisdiction
As stated above, on October 20, 2009, petitioner received

the FLD dated October 16, 2009 and FAN Nos. IT-06-00023,
IT-06-00024, VAT-06-00027, WE-06-00053, and WC-06-
00033 dated October 16, 2009, issued by the BIR Large
Taxpayers Service, assessing petitioner for alleged deficiency
tax liabilities, inclusive of interest and compromise penalties,
for the taxable year ending December 31, 2006.
Within the thirty-day period prescribed under Section

228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, petitioner filed its
protest letter on November 19, 2009 with the with BIR LTAID
11.56 On January 18, 2010, or within the sixty-day period
prescribed under Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended, to submit relevant supporting documents, petitioner
submitted to BIR LTAID II documents in support of its protest
letter. 57
Pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as

amended, if the protest is not acted upon within 180 days
from submission of supporting documents, the taxpayer may
appeal the inaction to this Court within thirty (30) days from
the lapse of the 180-day period. In this case, the 180-day
period lapsed on July 17, 2010 without any action on the part
of respondent. ss Thus, petitioner had thirty (30) days from
July 17, 2010 or until August 16, 2010 within which to file an
appeal before this Court. Indeed, petitioner timely filed the
instant Petition for Review with this Court on August 16,
2010.
Since the Petition for Review was filed on time, this Court
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same pursuant to j--
56
Exhibit " F", docket, pp. 594 to 617; Par. 16, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 30 I.
57
Exhibit " H", docket, pp. 657 to 659; Par. 17, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 30 I.
58
Par. 20, Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issue, docket, p. 301.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 14 of 47
Section 7(a)(2) of RA No. 1125, as amended by Section 7 of RA

No. 9282.59
Validity of the FLD and the FAN

both dated October 16, 2009
Petitioner contends that the FLO and the FAN issued by

respondent are null and void for being arbitrary and devoid of
procedural due process. Petitioner avers that while the PAN
and the FLO enumerated provisions of law on which the
assessment is supposedly based, respondent allegedly failed to
explain to petitioner how the figures were computed.
Petitioner also argues that since respondent failed to reply to
the FAN, petitioner was not given the opportunity to refute the
finding against it. Petitioner claims that respondent did not
bother to examine and scrutinize the voluminous documents
which were prepared, accounted, and submitted by petitioner
in support of its protest. In petitioner's view, the foregoing
acts of respondent make the assessments arbitrary for the
latter's failure to comply with the requirements of due process.
Petitioner argues that since respondent allegedly violated the
procedural requirements prescribed in Section 228 of the NIRC
of 1997, as amended, and Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-
99, the FAN and the FLO issued against petitioner should be
cancelled and declared as null and void.
On the other hand, respondent argues that the FLO and

the FAN were issued in accordance with Section 228 of the
NIRC of 1997, as amended. According to respondent, the FLO
and the FAN cited the provisions of law on which the
assessments were based, and the details of discrepancies
clearly explained how the individual amounts were arrived at
and obtained. Respondent contends that the fact that
petitioner was able to exhaustively explain in its protest letter
its objections against the FLO and the FAN would prove that
the FLO and the FAN contain the factual and legal bases in
support of the deficiency tax assessments. Finally, respondent
asserts that the requirement of due process has been provided J-
59
SEC. 7. Jurisdiction . -The CT A shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
XXX
(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds
of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period for action, in which case
the inaction sh all be deemed a denial ;
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 15 of 47
to petitioner as evidenced by respondent's issuance of the

Notice of Informal Conference and the PAN prior to the
issuance of the FLD and the FAN.
Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides

that the taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and
the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise , the
assessment shall b e void. However, it is noteworthy to
emphasize that assessment notices need not be a full
narration of the facts and laws on which the assessment is
based. It is enough that petitioner be substantially informed of
the law a n d the facts on which the assessment for a tax
liability is m a d e.6o Thus, so long as the parties are notified
and given the opportunity to explain their side, the
requiremen ts of due process are satisfactorily complied with. 61
In this case, a perusal of the Notice of Informal

Conference, th e PAN, and the FLD shows that details of
discrepancies, computations and schedules62 were attached
thereto, showing the factual and legal bases of the deficiency
tax assessments. This Court holds that said details of
discrepancies, computations , and schedules substantially
comply with the prescribed requisite of informing petitioner
with the fa ctu a l and legal bases on which the deficiency tax
assessments were based, pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC
of 1997, as amended. As aptly pointed out by respondent,
petitioner ha s in telligently and exhaustively made its protest
against the FAN and the FLD. This circumstance proves that
petitioner was sufficiently informed of the legal and factual
bases of the d eficiency tax assessments. Hence, petitioner's
contention that the FLD and the FAN issued against it failed to
disclo se th c fac ts and legal bases upon which the deficiency
tax as s es s rnc n ts were based is untenable .
This Cou r t also finds no merit on petitioner's contention

that it wa s d eprived of procedural due process when
responden L railed to act on petitioner's protest letter dated
November 19, 2009 and examine the voluminous supporting
documents submitted by petitioner. {
60
ATR K!JII f\'C Financial Corp. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 5722, May 3 1, 2004.
61
Calma, et of. vs. Court ofAppeals, et a/., G. R. No. 122787, February 9, 1999
62
Exhib its "C- 1", · I )- J",and "E-1 ", docket, pp. 519 to 533, 542 to 563, 567 to 569, and 575 to 593.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 16 of 47

amended, and RR No. 12-99, the procedure in the issuance of
deficiency tax assessment shall begin with the conduct of an
investigation or examination of the records of a taxpayer for
alleged deficiency tax liability. Thereafter, the taxpayer shall
be notified in writing of the findings for purposes of an
Informal Conference. If there is a sufficient basis to assess
the taxpayer of deficiency tax, a PAN shall be issued and sent
to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is then given fifteen (15) days to
make a Reply and he is also permitted to examine the records
and present his arguments in writing. If the taxpayer fails to
respond to the PAN, the taxpayer shall then be sent a FLD and
FAN, which shall state the facts and the law on which the
assessment was based. The taxpayer may file a protest based
on such assessment within thirty (30) days. After filing the
protest, the taxpayer must submit the relevant supporting
documents within sixty (60) days . If the taxpayer fails to file a
valid protest against the FLD and FAN, the assessment shall
become final and executory. 63
As stated above, respondent issued a Notice of Informal

Conference with Details of Discrepancies on August 27 , 2009 ;
which were received by petitioner on August 28, 2009. On
September 28, 2009, respondent issued a PAN with Details of
Discrepancies; which were received by petitioner on the same
date. On October 20, 200964, petitioner received the FLD and
the FAN dated October 16, 2009 . Petitioner filed its protest
letter on November 19, 2009 with the BIR LTAID II. 65 On
January 18, 2010, petitioner submitted documents in support
of its protest letter to BIR LTAID II .66
Based on the foregoing, respondent has substantially

complied with the requirement of procedural due process
when she issued the Notice of Informal Conference, the PAN,
the FLD, and the FAN. Respondent even issued a TVN for the
re-investigation of petitioner's deficiency tax assessments
pursuant to the protest letter filed by petitioner on November
19, 2009 . Evidently, petitioner was afforded the opportunity
to be heard, which is the very essence of due process.
Respondent's failure to appreciate the voluminous supporting
documents submitted by petitioner in support of its protestt
63
RR No. 12-99; Cargill Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 7928,
August 23, 20 II .
64
Exhibit "E", docket, p. 564.
65
Exhibit "F", docket, pp. 594 to 617; Par. 16, Joint Stipu lation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 30 I.
66
Exhibit "H", docket, pp. 657 to 658; Par. 17, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issue, docket, p. 30 I.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 17 of 47
letter is not tantamount to denial of due process. This is

because the essence of due process is found in the reasonable
opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may
have in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes is
the lack of opportunity to be heard. As long as the party is
given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he
would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to
be heard that makes up the essence of due process. 6 7
Requirement to issue the FAN within

the three-year prescriptive period
This Court shall now resolve the issue on whether

respondent's right to assess petitioner for the alleged
deficiency income tax, value-added tax (VAT), expanded
withholding tax (EWT), and withholding tax on compensation
(WTC) is barred by prescription.
Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, specifically

provides that respondent has three (3) years to assess and
collect an internal revenue tax, to wit:
"SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and

Collection. - Except as provided in Section 222, internal
revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years
after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the
return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for
the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the
expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a
return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the
three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the
return was filed . For purposes of this section, a return filed
before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof
shall be considered as filed on such last day." (Emphasis
supplied)

amended, internal revenue taxes must be assessed within
three years counted from the period flXed by law for the filing
of the tax return or the actual date of filing, whichever is later.
This mandate governs the question of prescription of the
government's right to assess internal revenue taxes primarily
to safeguard the interests of taxpayers from unreasonable
investigation. Accordingly, the government must assess£
67
£stares, eta/. vs. Court ofAppeals, eta/. , G.R. No. 144755, June 8, 2005.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 18 of 47
internal revenue taxes on time so as not to extend indefinitely

the period of assessment and deprive the taxpayer of the
assurance that it will no longer be subjected to further
investigation for taxes after the expiration of reasonable period
of time. 68
Thus, in determining the last day for respondent to

assess petitioner of deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT, and
WTC, this Court shall apply the relevant provisions of the
NIRC of 1997, as amended, as well as the implementing rules
and regulations issued by the BIR, to ascertain the reckoning
of the three-year prescriptive period.
Section 77(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides

for the period to file the Quarterly and Annual Corporate
Income Tax Returns, to wit:
"SEC. 77. Place and Time of Filing and Payment of

Quarterly Corporate Income Tax. -
XXX XXX XXX
(B) Time of Filing the Income Tax Return. - The

corporate quarterly declaration shall be filed within sixty
(60) days following the close of each of the first three (3)
quarters of the taxable year. The final adjustment return
shall be filed on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of April,
or on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of the fourth (4th)
month following the close of the fiscal year, as the case
may be."
In this case, petitioner filed its Annual ITR for taxable

year ending December 31, 2006 on April 16, 2007. Applying
Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the BIR had
until April 16, 20 10 within which to issue the FLD and the
FAN assessing petitioner for deficiency income tax for taxable
year ending December 31, 2006.
With regard to VAT, pursuant to Section 114(A) of the

NIRC of 199769, as amended, and Section 4. 114-1 (A) of RR t
68
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. FMF Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167765, June 30, 2008.
69
SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax.-
(A) In General. - Every person liable to pay the value-added tax imposed under this Title shall file a
quarterly return of the amount of his gross sales or receipts within twenty-five (25) days following the
close of each taxabl e quarter prescribed for each taxpayer: Provided, however, That VAT-registered
persons shall pay the value-added tax on a monthly basis.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 19 of 47
No. 16-2005, Quarterly VAT Returns shall be filed within

twenty-five (25) days following the close of each taxable
quarter prescribed for each taxpayer. This Court summarized
the dates of filing of petitioner's Quarterly VAT Returns and
the corresponding dates within which respondent should
assess petitioner for deficiency VAT for the four (4) quarters of
calendar year ending December 31, 2006, to wit:
Quarter Date of Filing of BIR Last Day of Filing as Last Day to Assess
Form No. 2550Q Required by Law
First Quarter of 20 06 August 23, 2007 April 25, 2006 August 23, 2010
Second Quarter of 2006 July 28, 2006 July 25, 2006 July 28, 2009
Third Quarter of 20 06 August23 , 2007 October 25, 2006 August23,2010
Fourth Quarter of 20 06 August22 , 2007 January 25, 2007 August 23, 201070
Anent the deficiency withholding taxes, Sections

2.58(A)(2)71 a n d 2.81 7 2 of RR No. 02-98, as amended by RR No.
06-01 and Rl~ No. 17-03, require the filing of the withholding
tax returns on EWT and WTC within ten (10) days after the
end of each month for the months of January until November,
while the withholding tax return for the month of December
should be filed on or before January 15 of the following year. 73/-
70 August 22, 20 I 0 fell on a Sunday.
71
"SEC. 2.58. Returus and Payment of Taxes Withheld at Source. -
(A) Monthly return and payment of taxes withheld at source. -
(I)
(2) WHEN TO I:ILE-
(a) For both l:1 rge and non-large taxpayers, the withholding tax return, whether creditable or final
(including fi n:li withholding taxes on interest from any currency bank deposit and yield or any
other monetary benefit from deposit substitutes and from trust funds and similar arrangements)
shall be filed :1nd payments should be made, within ten (I 0) days after the end of each month,
except for ta.'\cs withheld for the month of December of each year, which shall be filed on or
before January 15 of the following year; ...
XXX .'\XX XXX
(b) With respvct, however, to taxpayers, whether large or non-large, who availed ofthe electronic
filing and payi iiCII t system (EFPS), the deadline for electronically filing the applicable withholding
tax returns <JI HI pily ing the taxes due thereon via the EFPS shall be five (5) days later than the
deadlines set :1 bove, unless the EFPS regulations provide for different deadline dates ... "
72
"SECTION 2.81. FILING OF RETURN AND PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX WITHHELD ON
COMPENSATlON (f-"ORM NO. 1601). - Every person required to deduct and withhold the tax on
compensation, includi ng l:1 rge taxpayers as determined by the Commissioner, shall make a return and pay
such tax on or before the IOth day of the month following the month in which withholding was made to any
authorized agent ba nk ll'ith in the Revenue District Office (ROO) or in places where there are no agent
banks, to the Revenu e l) i ~ tr i c t Officer of the City or Municipality where the withholding agent/employer's
legal residence or plil ce of business or office is located; provided, however, that taxes withheld from the
last compensation (Dcce 1nber) for the calendar year shall be paid not later than January 15 of the
succeeding year; Pro1·itled however, that with respect to taxpayers, whether large or non-large, who availed
of the EFPS, the dead Iinc fo r electronically filing the aforesaid withholding tax return and paying the tax
due thereon via the Ef-" I' S ' hall be five (5) days later than the deadlines set above."
Pursuant to Secti o1 1~ ::2 .:'\ 8(A)(2) and 2.81 of RR No. 02-98, as amended, with respect to taxpayers,
73
whether large or non -I :I 1·gc, who availed of the electronic filing and payment system (EFPS), the deadline
for electronically fil iw: the applicable withholding tax returns and paying the taxes due thereon via the
EFPS shall be five (5) dilys later than the set deadlines unless the EFPS regulations provide for different
deadline dates. In rel :1: i011 thereto, RR No. 26-2002 provides for staggered filing of monthly withholding
tax returns (except w it I ll()ld ing of Final VAT and withholding of Percentage Tax) of taxpayers enrolled in
the EFPS based on i1 li 1St1·y classification. In this case, petitioner files its return and pays the tax due
thereon under EFPS, 1, liWvc r, there is nothing in the records that indicates under which industry it was
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 20 of 47
The Court summarized below the date s relevant t o the filing of

petitioner's tax returns for EWT and WTC :
Month Date of Filing of Date of Filing of Last Day of Filing Last Day to
BIRForm No. BIR Form No. as Required by Assess
1601-E 1601-C Law
January 2006 February 13, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 10, 2006 *February 13,
2009 /**February
10, 2009
February 2006 March 10, 2006 March 10, 2006 March 10, 2006 March 10, 2009
March 2006 April 11 , 2006 April 11 , 2006 April 10, 2006 April 13, 200974
April2006 May 11, 2006 May 10, 2006 May 10, 2006 *May 11,
2009 /**May 11 ,
200975
May 2006 June 13, 2006 June 13, 2 006 June 13, 200676 June 15, 200977
June 2006 July 10, 2006 July 11 , 2006 July 10, 2006 *July 10,
2009/**July 13,
2009 78
July 2006 August 11 , 2006 August 10, 2006 August 10,2006 *August 11,
2009/**August
10,2009
August2006 September 8 , 2006 September 8 , 2006 September 11 , September 11 ,
2006 79 2009
September October 11, 2006 October 11 , 2006 October 10, 2006 October 12 ,
2006 200980
October 2006 November 10, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 10,
2009
November December 11, 2006 December 11, 2006 December 11, December 11,
2006 200681 2009
December January 12, 2007 January 12 , 2007 January 15, 2007 January 15,
2006 2010
..
*Last day to assess petitJ.Oner for deficiency EWT
**Last day to assess petitioner for deficiency WTC
As aforestated, the FLD and the FAN, dated October 16,

2009 , assessing petitioner for alleged deficiency income tax,
VAT, EWT, and WTC for the calendar year ending December
31 , 2006 , were received by petitioner on October 20 , 2009.
Based on the foregoing , it is clear that the FLD and th e

FAN were issued beyond the last day prescribed under Section
203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended , to assess petitioner for
deficiency VAT for the second quarter of 2006 as well as for
deficiency EWT and WTC for the months of January 2006 to
September 2006 . Thus, respondent's right to assess petitioner
for said deficiency taxes has prescribed. ~
classified, hence, for purposes of counting the prescription, the deadlines set under RR No. 2-98 were
observed .
74
Apri l 11 , 2009 fe ll on a Saturday.
75
May 10, 2009 fell on a Sunday.
76
June I 0, 2006 fe ll on a Saturday and June 13 , 2006 was the next business day.
77
June 13, 2009 fe ll on a Saturday.
78
July I I, 2009 fe ll on a Saturday.
79
September I 0, 2006 fe ll on a Su nday.
80
October 11 , 2009 fe ll on a Sunday.
81
December I 0, 2006 fe ll on a Sunday.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 21 of 47
This Court shall now proceed to determine the merits of

the subject assessments.
Imposition of Compromise Penalties
This Court notes that respondent imposed compromise

penalties on the subject deficiency taxes in the total amount of
P200,000.00, broken down as follows :
Compromise
Tax Type Penalty
Income Tax p 50 ,000.00
No inventory list 2 5 ,000.00
Value-Added Tax 50 ,000 .00
WT-Expanded 25 ,000 .00
WT-Compensation 50,000.00
Total p 200,000.00
Pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 01 -

90, as amended by RMO No. 19-07, compromise penalties are
only suggested in settlement of criminal liability, and may not
be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer in the event that a
taxpayer refuses to pay the same. Thus, compromise penalties
imply mutual agreement between the taxpayer, on one hand,
and the CIR, on the other. Absent any showing that petitioner
consented to the compromise penalties, the same should not
be imposed. Accordingly, this Court holds that respondent's
imposition of compromise penalties , without the consent of
petitioner, cannot be sustained.
Deficiency Withholding Tax on Compensation
Respondent assessed petitioner for deficiency WTC for

taxable year 2006 in the amount of P9,415 ,910.31, computed
as follows :
Per F/ S
Cost of Sa les
Sala ries & f> 8, 111,441.00
Wages
Operating Expen ses
Sala ries & 40,577,257.79
Wa ges
Overtim e 893,833.37
13th Month 2,4 17,540.25
Bonus 4,638,250.00
Tota l f> 56,638,322.4 1
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 22 of 47
Per Alphalist Non-Taxable Taxable

13th Month p 2,154,415.10 p 3,557' 704.37
SSS, Philhealth 728,787.20
Salaries 784,201.59 30,631,583.62
Totals p 3,667,403 .89 p 34,189,287.99 37,856,691.88
Salaries and Wages still subject to WHT p 18,781,630.53
Rate ofTax 32%
Deficiency WHT on Compensation p 6,010, 121.77
Add: 20% Interest
1/16/2007-10/31/2009- 1019 days 3,355,788.54
Compromise Penalty 50,000.00
Deficiency WHT on Compensation Due and Collectible p 9,415,910.31
In its Memorandum, petitioner claims that respondent, in

determining petitioner's deficiency WTC, compared the
compensation-related accounts found in petitioner's financial
statements (FS) against the alphalist for compensation.
However, respondent used a substantially different amount to
represent petitioner's total compensation under the alphalist.
A perusal of the Monthly Remittance Returns of

Creditable Income Tax Withheld on Compensation (BIR Form
No. 1601-C)82 filed by petitioner for taxable year 2006
disclosed salaries and wages in the aggregate sum of
P51,715,657.03 , broken down as follows:
EXHIBIT MONTH TOTAL NON-TAXABLE TAXABLE TAXW/HELD

EE-l January p 3,658,419.03 p - p 3 ,658,419 .03 p 946,001.30
EE-2 February 4,011,463.10 955,361.70 3,056,101.40 751,640.04
EE-3; EE-13 March 4,274,891.35 78,491.70 4,196,399 .65 1,098,857.18
EE-4 April 8,449,681.93 83,658.30 8,366,023.63 2,447,932.77
EE-5 May 3,250,329.78 107,408.69 3,142,921.09 797,504.77
EE-6 June 2,55 1,787.62 105,791.70 2,445,995.92 550,390.15
EE-7 July 4 ,064,173 . 11 140,649.60 3,923,523.51 988,964.73
EE-8 August 3,656,738.55 155,016.73 3,501,721.82 841,631.90
EE-9 September 3,620,972 .73 211,587.97 3,409,384.76 768,476.63
EE-10 October 3,514,676.01 225,031.99 3,289,644.02 763,185.38
EE-11 November 5, 782,279.61 1,152,433.37 4 ,629,846.24 1, 197,230.15
EE-12 December 4,880,244 .2 1 483,459.80 4 ,396, 784.41 818,814.73
Total per BIR Form 1601-C p 51,715,657.03 p 3,698,891.55 p 48,016,765.48 p 11,970,629.73
A comparison of the total compensation per petitioner's

FS as found by respondent and the total of all monthly
compensation declared in BIR Forms No. 1601-C revealed a
discrepancy of P4,922,665.38, computed as follows:
Total salaries & wages p er petitioner's FS as found by respondent p 56,638,322.41

Less: Withholding tax on compensation remitted per BIR Forms No. 1601-C 51,715,657.03
Difference p 4,922,665.38
82
Exhibits "EE- l " to "EE-13" as attachments to Exhibit "QQQQ"; Exhibits "QQQ" to "CCCC".
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 23 of 47
The Independent CPA83 noted that the aforesaid

difference pertains to accrued employee costs in the amount of
P2,708,475.138 4 and pension cost in the amount of
P2 ,214, 190.55 paid for by petitioner's home office for the
expatriates assigned in the Philippines which were erroneously
included in the salaries account. 85
While Section 79(A) of the NIRC of 1997 and Section

2. 79(A) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, as amended,
require the withholding of tax upon payment of the
compensation, petitioner failed to present documents proving
that the compensation ofP2,708,475.13 was merely accrued
as of December 31, 2006. Likewise, petitioner did not
present any evidence to support the alleged pension cost paid
for by its home office in the amount of P2,214, 190.55.
In the absence of proof that the claimed salaries and

wages in the total amount of P4,922,665.38 is not subject to
withholding tax, this Court finds petitioner liable for the
corresponding deficiency withholding tax.
In this case, the above difference of P4,922,665 .38

should be subjected to withholding tax on compensation based
on the graduated tax rates of So/a to 32°/o. However, the
employees to whom the compensation pertained to were not
individually identified. Hence, We note that the BIR used the
highest tax rate of 32°/o, in computing the deficiency
withholding tax on compensation. In its protest letter dated
November 19, 2009 86 , however, petitioner correctly pointed out
that the appropriate tax rate to be used should be the effective
rate computed based on the total withholding tax on
compensation paid divided by the total amount of taxable
compensation reported during the taxable year 2006, as
shown below:
Total withholdin p 7,683,415.0387

22.11%
p 34,755,338.3388
83
Antonio 0 . Maceda, Jr. or Maceda Farnacio & Co.
84
Exhibit "QQQQ", under 8.2 of the Findings, page 9.
85
Exhibit "QQQQ", under 8.2 of the Findings, page 10.
86
Exhibit "F", docket, p.61 2.
87
Amount lifted from Alph alist of Employees, Exhibit " DODD-I ", docket, pp. 903-909.
88
Ibid.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 24 of 47
Therefore, petitioner's basic deficiency WTC for taxable

year 2006 amounts to P1,088,401.32, computed as follows:
Total salaries & wages per petitioner's FS as found by respondent r 56,638,322.41

Less: Withholding tax on compensation remitted per BIR Form No. 1601-C 51,715,657.03
Salaries & wages still subject to withholding tax r 4,922 ,665.38
Tax rate 22.11%
Deficiency withholdin~ tax on compensation p 1,088,401.32
As earlier noted by this Court, respondent's right to

assess petitioner of deficiency WTC for the months of January
to September 2006 had already prescribed. Petitioner was,
however, unable to establish that the salaries and wages of
P4,922,665.38 pertained to the months of January to
September 2006. In the absence of proof to the contrary, this
Court shall consider the amount of P4,922,665.38 as
pertaining to petitioner's claimed salaries & wages for the
months of October to December 2006.
Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax
Per comparison of petitioner's expense items/income

payments as reflected in its financial statements with those
shown in its alphalist for the year 2006, respondent found
that the amounts of P242,267,449.61 and P102,270,003.14
were not subjected to 1°/o EWT of P2,422,674.50 and 2o/o EWT
of P2,045,400.06, respectively, pursuant to Section 57(B) of
the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to RR No. 2-98, as
amended by RR No. 17-03. Below is the detailed breakdown of
the said amounts:
PerFS Per Alphalist Difference

Additions to PPE:
Gas Tanks and Cylinders

72,564,481.00 21,076,4 72.45 51,488,008.55
Machinery & Equipment
5,065,571.00 5,065,571.00
-
Transportation Equipment -
25,010,679.00 25,010,679.00
Furniture, Fixtures &
-
Equipment 2,627,939.00 2,627,939.00
Cost of Sales
Purchases
817,707,904.60 635,158,416.71 182,549,487.89
Operating Expenses
Printed Papers, Docs, Books 971,798.35 - 971,798.35
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 25 of 47
Transportation & Travel:

Cars-Fuel 3 , 117,919.41 - 3,117,919.41
Small Equipment & Materia ls 513, 180.42 - 513,180.42
Small Office Equipment 212,479.52 - 212,479.52
Membership & Subscriptions:
Gifts 786,636.47 - 786,636.47
Total 928,578,588.77 686,311,139.16 242,267,449.61
1% EWT Due
9,285,785.89 6 ,863,111.39 2,422,674.50
Additions to PPE:
Buildings & Improvement 452 ,143.00 452 , 143.00

-
Construction in Progress 29 ,781 ,287 .00 29,781,287.00

-
Cost of Sales
Freight-in 95,897' 145.00 77,832 ,304. 18 18,064 ,840.82
Insurance 2 ,592 ,288.00 2 ,592,288.00
Throughput Fees 35,625,000.00 35,625,000.00

-
Filing Costs 30,853,608.00 30,853 ,608.00 -
Other Overhead 29 , 143,816.00 29,143,816.00 -
Operating Expenses:
Salaries, Wages & Employee
Benefits-
External Med Care 1,894,602.80 1,894,602 .80
Rent:
Office Equipment 2 ,631.57 2 ,631.57
Forklift Trucks 15,000.00 15,000.00
Cylinder Trucks 28,493.96 28,493.96
Bulk Trucks 31 ,250.00 31 ,250.00
Diesel Pumps 10,000.00 10,000.00
Outside Services:
Other Contractor-Security 2,150,960.58 2 , 150,960.58
Software House 191 ,367.61 191,367.61
Interimpers Employee 3 ,581,791.28 3 ,581 ,791.28
Other Fees 1,296, 246.01 1,296,246 .01
Repairs & Maintenance:
Ground & Building 1,34 7 ,687.00 1,347,687.00
Machine & Equipment 1' 132,024 .53 1' 132,024.53
Cars 1' 113 ,993 .85 1,113,993.85
Cylinders Painting 3,113,046 .98 3,113,046.98
Cylinders Valves/Regu la tors 30,357. 14 30,357 .14
Computer Equipment 5 ,377.61 5 ,377.61
Insurance:
Fire 2,241,914.85 2,241 ,914 .85
Trucks 233 ,568.30 233 ,568.30
Cars 22 2 ,586 .31 222 ,586.31
Others 4,765,111.99 4,765,111.99
l
DECISION
CfA CASE NO. 8149
Page 26 of 47
Transportation & Travel:

Travel Costs 10,640,779.13 10,640,779. 13
Communication, Light & Power:
Electricity 1,555,346.09 315,071.31 1,240,274.78
Water 117,459 . 11 117,459. 11
Truck 827,688.12 827,688. 12
Telephone 1,497,739.32 1,497,739.32
Portable Telephone 1,45 1,6 11.28 1,451,611.28
Postal Costs 114,440.07 114,440.07
Fax 42 ,1 59.19 42,159.19
Leaseline 233,942.93 233,942.93
Internet 273,494.89 273 ,494 .89
Membership & Subscri p tions 4 ,089,504 . 13 4,089,504 . 13
Interest Expense 35,075,883.00 35,075,883.00
Bank Charges 2,599,886.00 2,599,886.00
Total 306,273,232.63 204,003,229.49 102,270,003.14
2% EWT Due 6 , 125, 464.65 4,080,064.59 2,045,400.06
Rent- Ground & Build in g 7, 953,509.84 7 ,953,509.84 -

5% EWTDue 397,675.49 397,675.49 -
Outside Services
Lawyers 2,657,027.11 2,657,027.11 -
Accountants 745,454.55 745,454 .55 -
Commissions 2, 170,840.00 2,170,840.00 -
Total 5,573,321.66 5,573,321.66 -
10% EWT Due 557,332. 17 557,332 . 17 -
Total Expenses/Incom e
Payments 1 ,248,378,652 .90 903,841,200.15 344,537,452.75
Total EWT Due 16,366,258.20 11,898,183.64 4,468,074.56
In its protest 1clter 8 9, petitioner argues that the starting

figure per audit or the BIR as regards its local purchases
should be P51 4,882 , 1 02.91 and not P817,707,904.60 .
Petitioner explain s lhat its total importation amounted to
P5,900,612,768.09 a nd n ot P5,597,786,966.4Q90 as computed
by the BIR. T hu s , after deducting petitioner's total
importation of f> 5, CJ00 ,6 12 ,768.09 from the total purchases per
FS of P6,415 ,LJ91J,8 7 J .0091 , the resulting amount of
P514,882,102.9 1 vou ld represent its local purchases that
were subjected t o t h e 1c% withholding tax. j_
89
Exhibit "F", docket, p. 60 1.
90
Exhibit "E- 1", docket, p. 58 7.
91
Exhibit "J", docket, p. 693.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 27 of 47
This Court agrees with petitioner. As aptly noted by the

Court-commissioned Independent CPA, petitioner's
importations amounting to P5,900,612,768.09 were duly
supported by bills of lading, suppliers' invoices, Bureau of
Customs Import Entries and Internal Revenue Declarations
(IEIRDs), and official receipts.92 Therefore, petitioner's local
purchases for the year 2006 actually amounted to
P514, 882, 102.91. Since this figure is lower than the amount
of P635,158,416.71 purchases found by respondent to have
been subjected to 1o/o EWT per alphalist, this Court holds that
petitioner is not liable for any deficiency 1°/o EWT on local
purchases.
Anent the interest and bank charges in the respective

amounts of P35,075,883.00 and P2,599,886.00, upon which a
2°/o deficiency EWT was imposed by respondent, the
Independent CPA reported that petitioner's interest expense
was not subjected to withholding tax. 93 Ms. Maricel A.
Cambe, petitioner's Corporate Accounting Head, corroborated
the Independent CPA's findings saying that petitioner
maintains an account with the creditor bank and the interest
payments and bank charges were automatically debited from
petitioner's bank account. The bank allegedly did not deduct
the applicable withholding taxes from the amount it debited;
consequently, petitioner did not issue any creditable
withholding tax certificates to the bank. 94
Petitioner submits that the subject interest expense and

bank charges are not subject to withholding tax since they are
automatically debited from its bank account. However, under
RR No. 2-98, as amended, and as clarified by Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 72-0495, interest on loans, service
fees, and other charges a re considered as payments for
services rendered, hence, su bject to 2°/o EWT. Consequently,
petitioner is liable to pay th e deficiency 2°/o EWT imposed on
interest payments and bank charges paid to the creditor bank.
It is petitioner's responsibility, as a withholding agent, to
make arrangemen ts with th e creditor bank that the amount
which the latter wou1d au I r)matically debit from petitioner's
account should be ne t o f the 2 c% EWT. ~
92
Exhibits " DO" to " DD-83" <I S illl <1 CI1111C II l S to r xhibit "QQQQ".
93
Exhibit "QQQQ", page 19, doc ket, p. 1065.
94
Exhibit " RRRR", Item Nos. 79 tv 81 , docket. p p. 1090 to 1091.
95
See Ql8, Al8, Ql9 and A 19 of RMC No. 72 -04.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 28 of 47
With respect to the remrun1ng expenses/ income

payments in the amounts of P59, 717,961.7296 and
P64,594,234.1497, respondent's deficiency 1°/o and 2% EWT
assessment thereon shall be upheld. While petitioner
presented its Monthly Remittance Returns of Creditable
Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded) [BIR Forms No. 1601-E)
with the attached EFPS Payment Details for the years 2005 98,
200699, and 2007100, Annual Information Return of Creditable
Income Taxes Withheld (Expanded)/Income Payments Exempt
from Withholding Tax [BIR Form No. 1604-E) with attached
Alphalist of Payees for the years 2005101, 2005102, and 2007103 ,
entries in the General Ledger for Freight-In 104, Insurance
Costlo5, External Med-Care106 and Travel Cost 107 , and
Independent CPA report dated May 27, 20111° 8 to prove that it
withheld and remitted the EWT due on the said expenses, this
Court finds these documents insufficient. Petitioner should
have presented its detailed general ledger showing the
breakdown of the expenses per FS and reconciled these
amounts with the income payments reflected per its alphalists
for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
It bears stressing that tax assessments by tax examiners

are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the
taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise. Failure to
present proof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial
affirmance of said assessment.1°9 As a result, petitioner is
liable to pay basic deficiency EWT 1n the amount of
P2,642,579.68, computed as follows:
Tax
Amount Rate Deficiency EWT
Income payments subject to 1%EWT p 242,267,449.61
Less: Income payments erroneously
treated by respondent as
pertaining to petitioner's local
purchases (182,549,487.89) p 59,717,961.72 1% p 597, 179.62
Income payments subject to 2%EWT 102,270,003.14 2% 2,045,400.06
Total P161,987,964.86 p 2,642,579.68
96
P242,267,449.61 less P182,549,487 .89.
97
Pl02,270,003 .14less P35,075,883 .00 and P2,599,886.00.
98
Exhibits "BBB" to "MMM", inclusive of sub-markings, docket, pp. 811 to 835.
99
Exhibits "PP" to "XX", and "YY" to "AAA", inclusive of sub-markings, docket, pp. 786 to 810.
100
Exhibits " DO" to " 00", inclusive of sub-markings, docket, pp. 742 to 785 .
10 1
Exhibits "PPP" to "PPP-1 ", docket, pp. 867 to 873.
102
Exhibits " 000" to " 000-1 ", docket, pp. 854 to 866.
103
Exhibits "NNN'' to "NNN-1 ", and " KKKK" to " KKKK-1 ", docket, pp. 836 to 853 and 986 to 1002.
104
Exhibit "JJJJ", docket, pp. 982 to 985 .
105
Exhibit "LLLL", docket, pp. 1003 to 1025.
106
Exhibit "MMMM", docket, pp. 1026 to 1037.
107
Exhibits "NNNN" to "NNNN-8" .
108
Exhibit "QQQQ", docket, pp. 1056 to 1065.
109
Marcos JJ vs. Court ofAppeals, et a/. , G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997.
DECI SION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 29 of 47
It is to be noted that while r espondent's right to a ssess

petitioner of deficiency EWT for the months of January to
September 2006 had already pres cribed, petitioner was unable
to establish that the above income payments pertain to the
months of January to September 2006. Thus, in the absen ce
of proof, this Court shall consider the t otal income paym en ts
of P161 ,987 ,964.86 as pertaining to the months of October to
December 2 006.
Deficiency Income Tax
Respondent assessed petitioner of deficiency income tax

for taxable year 2006 in the amount of P286 ,241 ,73 1.88,
computed as follows: 11o
Taxable Income per return r 64,702,897.40

Add: Adjustments
a. Unrecorded sales on undeclared Petron
Purchases (Secs.32 & 44(A) of the NIRC) r 1,049,152.37
b. Overclaimed Purch ases from Asian Angle
Kunstruck (Sec. 32 of the NIRC) 2,514,322 .72
c. Expenses not subjected to withholding tax
(Sec. 34(K) of the NIRC)
Income payments not subj ected to 1% EWT P242 ,267 ,449.61
Income payments not subjected to 2% EWT 102,270,003 .14 344,537,452 .75
d . Salaries & Wages not subjected to Wtax
(Sec. 34(K) of the NIRC) 18,781,630.53
e . Unsupported Bad Debts (Sec. 34(A)(1)(b) of
the NIRC) 8 ,431 ,934.00
f. Unrecorded Sales on Underclaimed
Importation (Sees. 32 & 44(A) of the NIRC) 55,614,853.82
g. Overclaimed Importation (Sec. 32 of the
NIRC) 11 ,892 ,375 .63
h. Undeclared sales to PSPC (Sec. 32 of the
NIRC) 85,946,167 .89 528,767,889 .71
Taxable Incomeper investigation r 593,470 ,787.11
Income tax rate 35%
Tax due per a u dit/investigation r 207,714 ,775.49
Less:
Prior year's Excess Credit N2 ,986,386.59
Creditable Tax Withheld Per 2307 P18 ,337,632.00
Less: Unsupported/Out-of-Period 4,582,506 .19 13,755,125.81
Total P56,741,512.40
Less: Carry-Over Per Return 38,678,120.60 18,063,391.80
Basic Income Tax Due r 189 ,651 ,383 .69
Add: Increments
r
Surcharge -
Interest (04/16/06- 10/31/09) 929 days 96,540,348. 19
Compromise 50,000.00 96,590,348.19
Total Deficiency Income Tax p 286,241 ,731.88
The determination of whether or not the assessment is

correct shall depend on the propriety of the income imputed j
110
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 30 of 47
as well as the expense deductions and tax credits disallowed

by respondent, namely:
a. Unrecorded sales on undeclared Petron purchases p 1,049,152.37

b. Overclaimed purchases from Asian Angle Kunstruck 2,514,322.72
c. Expenses not subjected to EWT 344,537,452.75
d. Salaries & wages not subjected to Wtax 18,781 ,630.53
e. Unsupported bad debts 8,431,934.00
f. Unrecorded sales on underclaimed importation 55,614,853.82
g. Overclaimed importation 11,892,375.63
h. Undeclared sales to PSPC 85,946,167.89
1. Unsupported I out -of- period CWT 4 ,582 ,506. 19
j. CWT Carried -over per return 38,678,120.60
a. Unrecorded Sales on Undeclared Petron Purchases -

Pl,049,152.37
Based on the records of Petron, respondent purportedly

found sales to petitioner in the amount of P29,361,061.13;
which was not recorded as purchases in petitioner's books.
Respondent assumed that the said goods were ultimately sold
by year-end and the gross profit from the sale of the same was
added to petitioner's taxable sales per return. Respondent
computed the alleged unrecorded sales of Pl,049,152.37 as
follows: 111
Undeclared purchases p 29,361,061.13

Divided by Cost of Sales Ratio 96.55%
Sales Revenue per audit p 30,410,213 .50
Less: Unclaimed purchases 29,361,061.13
Taxable sales per audit p 1,049,152.37
Petitioner disagrees with respondent's findings and

submitted a schedule112 reflecting purchases in the total
amount of P6,415,494,870.88, which includes purchases from
Petron amounting to P28,349,221.41.
A careful examination of petitioner's audited financial

statements 11 3 and annual income tax return for taxable year
2006 114 disclosed that petitioner's cost of sales amounting to
P6,703,710,266.00 consisted of purchases in the amount of
P6,415,494,871.00, which is the same figure reflected in t
111
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, pp. 583 to 585 .
11 2
Exhibit "F", Annex "B", docket, pp. 638 to 640.
11 3
Exhibit "J", Note 17, docket, p. 693.
114
Exhibit "K" , line 16C, docket, p. 696.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 31 of 47
petitioner's schedule of purchases. Thus, the subject

purchases from Petron were duly reported.
The Court-commissioned Independent CPA found in the

Alphalist of Payees for taxable year 2006 that petitioner also
had purchases amounting to P1,193,813.05 from Petron
through its Fleet Card.1 15 It should be noted that the
summary116 of Petron sales to petitioner, which was compared
to petitioner's purchases, does not specify whether or not the
same were made through fleet card. The Court is thus
constrained to consider petitioner's purchases through the use
of fleet card.
A fleet card is a credit facility which allows fleet vehicles

of a company to fuel up and pay later. Petitioner's purchases
through fleet card are not for resale; hence, they are not
included in petitioner's cost of sales. As a consequence,
respondent's computation using the cost of sales ratio to
determine the taxable sales does not apply to petitioner's
purchases from Petron through fleet card.
Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioner

properly reported and fully accounted for its purchases from
Petron as shown below: 117
Purchases from Petron per respondent's audit p 29 ,361 ,061.13

Less: Purchases from Petron reported as part of p 28 ,349,221.41
petitioner's cost of sales
Purchases through Petron's Fleet Card 1,193,813 .05 29,543,034.46
Difference p (181,973.33)
Consequently, the deficiency income tax assessment on

the alleged unrecorded sales from undeclared Petron
purchases should be cancelled for lack of factual basis.
b. Overclaimed purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk -

P2,514,322. 72
Per respondent's audit information, Asian Angle

Konstruk (AAK) recorded sales to petitioner amounting to
P5, 192,358.85 11 8 but petitioner reported purchases of j
115
Exhibit "QQQQ", page 8, docket p. I 054.
11 6
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, pp. 583 .
117
Exhibits "QQQQ", page 8 and "000-1 "
11 8
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, p. 586.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 32 of 47
P7,706,608.47119; hence, the discrepancy representing alleged

overclaimed purchases.
Upon examination of the schedules presented, this Court

found that the discrepancy amounts to P2,514,249.72 (not
P2,514,322.72), computed as follows:
Amount
Asian Angle Konstruk Summary of Sales to Liquigaz p 5,192,358 .85
Petitioner's Summary of purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk 7,706,608.57
Petitioner counter-argues that its recorded purchases

from AAK are duly substantiated with invoices and official
receipts.12o However, petitioner failed to submit the invoices
and official receipts for the perusal of the Court. Hence,
petitioner's unsupported purchases in the amount of
P2,514,249.72 shall be disallowed pursuant to Section
34(A)(l)(b) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states:
"SEC. 34. Deductions from Gross Income. - xxx
(A) Expenses. -
( 1) Ordinary and Necessary Trade, Business or

Professional Expenses. -
XXX XXX XXX
(b) Substantiation Requirements. -No deduction from

gross income shall be allowed under Subsection (A) hereof
unless the taxpayer shall substantiate with sufficient
evidence, such as official receipts or other adequate records:
(i) the amount of the expense being deducted, and (ii) the
direct connection or relation of the expense being deducted
to the, development, management, operation and/ or conduct
of the trade, business or profession of the taxpayer."
c. Expenses not Subjected to Expanded Withholding Tax -

P344,537 ,452. 75
Based on the finding that petitioner failed to withhold

and remit the EWT on certain expenses in the amount oft
11 9
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, p. 592.
120
Exhibit "F", page 22, docket, p. 615 .
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 33 of 47
P344,537,452 .75 pursuant toRR No. 2-98, as amended by RR

No. 17-03, in relation to Section 57(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended, as discussed under the deficiency EWT assessment,
respondent disallowed the said amount as deduction from
petitioner's taxable gross income .
As earlier discussed, petitioner failed to prove that it

properly withheld and remitted the EWT due on its income
payments of P161,987,964.86. Consequently, the said
amount shall be disallowed from petitioner's claimed
deductible expenses pursuant to Section 34(K) of the NIRC of
1997, as amended, which states that:
"(K) Additional Requirements for Deductibility of Certain

Payments. - Any amount paid or payable which is otherwise
deductible from, or taken into account in computing gross
income or for which depreciation or amortization may be
allowed under this Section, shall be allowed as a deduction
only if it is shown that the tax required to be deducted and
withheld therefrom has been paid to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue in accordance with this Section, sections 58 and 81
of this Code ."
d. Salaries and Wages not subjected to Withholding Tax

-P18,781,630.53
Respondent claims that the salaries and wages for the

year 2006 in the amount of P18,781,630.53 were not
subjected by petitioner to withholding tax pursuant to
Sections 24 (A)( 1), 79, and 80 of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended. As a consequence of the alleged non-withholding,
respondent disallowed said amount from petitioner's claimed
deductible expenses.
As earlier stated under the deficiency WTC assessment,

petitioner failed to prove that it withheld and remitted the
withholding tax due on the salaries and wages of
P4,922,665.38. Hence, the same cannot be deducted by
petitioner from its taxable gross income pursuant to Section
34(K) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. j,
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 34 of 47
e. Unsupported bad debts- P8,431,934.00
Pursuant to Section 34(A)(1)(b) of the NIRC of 1997, as

amended, respondent disallowed petitioner's claimed
deduction for bad debts in the amount of P8,431, 934.00 for
being unsupported. On the other hand, petitioner posits that
such write-off is lawful and valid and that the same is
adequately supported by documents.I 21
Section 34(E) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, allows

bad debts written-off as deductions from gross income, thus:
"SEC. 34 . Deductions from Gross Income. - xxx
(E) Bad Debts. -
(1) In General. - Debts due to the taxpayer actually

ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the
taxable year except those not connected with profession,
trade or business and those sustained in a transaction
entered into between parties mentioned under Section 36(B)
of this Code: Provided, That recovery of bad debts previously
allowed as deduction in the preceding years shall be
included as part of the gross income in the year of recovery
to the extent of the income tax benefit of said deduction."
The above prov1s1on is implemented by Section 3 of

Revenue Regulations No. 5-99, as amended by RR No . 25-02,
which enumerates the requirements for deductibility of bad
debts from gross income, to wit:
"Sec. 3. Requisites for valid deduction of bad debts

from gross income. - The requisites for deductibility of bad
debts are:
(1) There must be an existing indebtedness due to the

taxpayer which must be valid and legally demandable;
(2) The same must be connected with the taxpayer's

trade, business or practice of profession;
(3) The same must not be sustained in a transaction

entered into between related parties enumerated under Sec.
36(B) of the Tax Code of 1997; ?
12 1
Exhibit "F", page 22, docket, p. 615 .
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 35 of 47
(4) The same must be actually charged off the books

of accounts of the taxpayer as of the end of the taxable year;
and
(5) The same must be actually ascertained to be

worthless and uncollectible as of the end of the taxable
year."
However, other than the testimony 122 of its Corporate

Accounting Head, stating that the said receivables could no
longer be collected despite utmost effort exerted and collection
letters sent to customers and that most of the customers are
no longer in business, petitioner did not present documents to
prove compliance with the requirements for deductibility of the
amount of P8,431,934.00 as bad debts. Hence, respondent's
disallowance of the said amount from petitioner's claimed
deductions from gross income for taxable year 2006 shall
remaJ.n.
f. Unrecorded sales on underclaimed importation

P55,614,853.82 and
g. Overclaimed importation - Pll ,892,375.63
Respondent computed the alleged unrecorded sales of

P55,614,853.82 on petitioner's underclaimed importation as
follows : 12 3
Excess per BOC vs. per taxpayer's record p 1,556 ,409 ,894 .65
Cost of sales ratio* 96.55%
Sales revenue per audit on excess of importation 1,612,024 ,748.47
Less: Unclaimed purchases per BOC 1,556,409 ,894 .65
Taxable sales per audit p 55,614,853.82
*Cost of sales ratio com utation:

Cost of sales P 6,703 ,710,266 .00
96.55%
Net sales P 6,942 ,696,690.00
At the same time, respondent found and disallowed

petitioner's alleged overclaimed importation amounting to
Pll ,892,375.63.
Petitioner reiterates that its importations for the year

2006 amounted to P5 ,900,612,768.09 and not
P5,597,786,966 .40 as found by respondent. In addition,?
122
Exhibit "RRRR", item nos. 83 and 84, docket, p. 109 1.
123
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, p. 593 .
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 36 of 47
petitioner asserts that respondent's assessment lack legal and

factual bases, depriving it of the right to mount a proper
defense. As such, petitioner believes that the said assessment
should be considered void.1 24
A closer examination of the FAN and the Formal Letter of

Demand reveals that respondent failed to include the
importation data obtained from the Bureau of Customs which
was compared to petitioner's records on importation. Neither
was it offered to the Court in evidence. Further, respondent
cited Section 44(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as legal
basis of its assessment of unrecorded sales on importation of
P55,614,853.82. The said provision is quoted hereunder for
easy reference:
"SEC. 44. Period in which Items of Gross Income

Included. - The amount of all items of gross income shall be
included in the gross income for the taxable year in which
received by the taxpayer, unless, under methods of
accounting permitted under Section 43, any such amounts
are to be properly accounted for as of a different period. In
the case of the death of a taxpayer, there shall be included
in computing taxable income for the taxable period in which
falls the date of his death, amounts accrued up to the date
of his death if not otherwise properly includible in respect of
such period or a prior period."
Petitioner correctly noted that respondent failed to

properly cite the pertinent provision of the law to support her
findings. Thus, pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997,
as amended, respondent's assessment arising from the alleged
underclaimed and overclaimed importations for the year 2006
should be cancelled for lack of factual and legal bases.
h . Undeclared sales to PSPC- P8 5,946,1 6 7. 89
Upon comparison of petitioner's sales to Pilipinas Shell

Petroleum Corporation (PSPC) as reflected in BIR Forms No.
2307 and as shown in petitioner's Summary List of Sales,
respondent's examiner found that petitioner's sales to PSPC is
understated by P85,946, 167.88, computed as follows:1 25/
124
Exhibit "F", pages 22 to 23, docket, pp. 615 to 616.
125
Exhibits "E-1 ", docket, pp. 568 and 582.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 37 of 47
Per Petitioner's Summary Alphalist of Withholding Taxes: 126

p 8,434,539.20
62,814,546 .99
82,728,650.70
75,192,969.00 p 229' 170,705.89
Per Summary List of Sales: 12 7
January p 29,136,347.00
February 34,311,157.90
March 30,277,999.60
April 7,929,537.04
May 22,796,062.50
June 18,2 14,507.18
July 558,926.79
August -
September -
October -
November -
December - 143,224,538.01
Petitioner contends that its sales to PSPC in the year

2006 amounted to P153,977,736 .89, broken down as
follows: 128
Exhibit Period Amount

HHHH 1st Quarter p 82 ,728 ,650.70
HHHH-1 2nd Quarter 62,814,546.99
HHHH-2 3rd Quarter 8,434,539.20
GGGG TOTAL p 153,977,736.89
Petitioner argues that the difference should only be

P10,753,198.88 (P153,977,736.89 less P143,224,538.01). We
note that the remrun1ng unexplained difference of
P75,192,969.00 (P85,946,167 .88 less P10,753,198.88) can be
traced to petitioner's Summary Alphalist of Withholding Taxes
(SAWT)129. Petitioner was not, however, able to fully explain
the discrepancy of P85,946,167.88; thus, this Court has to
sustain the assessment. Accordingly, petitioner shall be held
liable for the corresponding deficiency income tax. {
126
BIR Records, Folder II, pp. 283 to 284.
127
BIR Records, Folder III, pp. 297 to 438.
128
Exhibit "F", page 3 and Annex "C", docket, pp. 596 and 641.
129
Supra, Note 126 (SA WT for the month of December 2006 in the total amount of Pl8,337,919.24).
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 38 of 47
i. Unsupported/ Out-of-period Creditable Withholding

Taxes - P4,582,506.19
Respondent found that for taxable year 2006, petitioner

had P4,582,506.19 creditable withholding taxes that are
unsupported and/ or out-of-period.l30
To refute respondent's findings, petitioner submitted

Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld (BIR Form No. 2307)
issued by its suppliers but the same were not admitted by the
Court as evidence for failure by petitioner to present the
origina1.131 Consequently, petitioner tendered the same as
excluded evidence, 132 which was granted by the Court in a
Resolutionl33 dated August 29, 2012.
On the other hand, the Independent CPA examined

several of petitioner's Certificates of Creditable Taxes Withheld
for the year 2006 amounting to P8,038, 115.00.134 Upon
examination of the certificates, this Court found that
creditable withholding taxes of P2,296,030.51 were properly
supported by BIR Forms No. 2307, broken down as follows:
Exhibit Payor CWT

UU-85 Barrientos & Co Inc. p 14,148.32
UU-110 Cardinal Ceramics Mfg. 119,908.75
UU-53 Insulflex Industries 2,585 .36
UU-52 Insulflex Industries 3,348.50
UU-49 Insulflex Industries 1,650.63
UU-74 Mariwasa Siam Ceramics 304,569.81
UU-202 Phil Steel Coating Corp. 39,927.00
UU-200 Phil Steel Coating Corp. 51,789. 11
UU-221 Quality Container Corp. 8,959.62
UU-230 Roberts Automotive & Indtl. Parts 27,461.72
UU-232 Roberts Automotive & Indtl. Parts 28,972 .28
UU-236 Royal Tern Ceramics Phils Inc. 38,868.99
UU-235 Royal Tern Ceramics Phils Inc . 45,131.60
130
Exhibit "E-1", docket, pp. 580 to 581.
131
Resolution dated October 25, 2011 , docket, pp. II II to 1135 and Resolution dated June II , 2012,
docket, pp. 1338 to 1355.
132
Tender of Excluded Evidence filed on June 27,2012, docket, pp. 1356 to 1367.
133
Docket, pp. 1455 tol457.
134
Exhibit "UU" as attached to Exhibit "QQQQ".
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 39 of 47
UU-234 Royal Tern Ceramics Phils Inc. 35,036.31

UU-233 Royal Tern Ceramics Phils Inc. 50,849 .36
UU-259 Sonic Steel Industries Inc. 5,151.56
UU-253 Sonic Steel Industries Inc. 19 ,883.95
UU-254 Sonic Steel Industries Inc. 28,802 .00
UU-258 Sonic Steel Industries Inc. 5 ,325.88
UU-266 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 569.60
UU-267 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 1,302.57
UU-268 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 1,562.71
UU-270 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 1,022 .58
UU-274 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 245 .97
UU-275 Steel Centre Phils. Corp. 784 .08
UU-305 United Perlite Corp. 3,360. 15
UU-304 United Perlite Corp. 4,492 .21
UU-306 United Perlite Corp. 8,466.89
TOTAL p 2,296,030.51
Thus, only the creditable withholding taxes of

P2,286,4 75.68 (P4,582,506.19 less P2,296,030.51) should be
disallowed from petitioner's claimed total tax credits.
j. CWT carried-over per return - P38,678, 120.60
It was improper for respondent to disallow the excess tax

credits of P38,678, 120.60 135 reflected in petitioner's 2006
Annual Income Tax Return because any tax benefit derived by
petitioner from the carry-over of the said amount redounds to
the succeeding year 2007. Since the tax benefit will be in the
succeeding year, at most, petitioner may only be assessed in
the said succeeding year.
In summary, petitioner 1s liable to pay basic deficiency

income tax for taxable year 2006 1n the amount of
P55,939,514.83, computed as follows:
Taxable Income per Return , 64 ,702,897.40

Add: Ad"ustments
Overclaimed purchases from Asian
a. Angle Kunstruck , 2 ,514,249.72
b. Expenses not subjected to 1% EWT IP 59,717,961.72
135
Exhibit "K", line 31, docket, p. 697.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 40 of 47
Expenses not subjected to 2% EWT 102,270,003.14 161,987' 964.86

Salaries & wages not subjected to
c. w /holding tax 4,922,665.38
d. Unsupported bad debts 8,431,934.00
e. Undeclared sales to PSPC 85,946,167.89 263,802,981.85
Taxable Income per Investigation P328,505,879.25
Income Tax Rate 35%
Income Tax Due per Investigation P114,977,057.74
Less: Prior year's excess credits , 42,986,386.59
Creditable taxes withheld per BIR
Forms 2307 P18,337,632.00
Less: Unsupported/ out-of-period
creditable w /holding taxes 2,286,475.68 16,051,156.32 59,037,542.91
Deficiency Income Tax p 55,939,514.83
Deficiency Value-added Tax
Respondent's detailed computation of the deficiency VAT

assessment for taxable year 2006 1n the amount of
P28,030,807 .26 is reproduced below: 136
Taxable sales per return P6,890, 189,183.00

Add : Adjustments
a. Unrecorded sales on undeclared Petron purchases , 1,049,152.37
b. Sales to PSPC not subjected to output tax 85,946,167.89
c. Income not subjected to output tax 4,418,775.00
d. Unrecorded sales on underclaimed importation 55,614,853.52 147,028,948.78
Adjusted taxable sales per audit p 7,037,218,131.78
Tax rates 10%
,
p 56,426,703.20
Output tax per audit/investigation

12%
, 776,754,132.00
833,180,835.20
Less: Input tax
Carry-over from previous quarter
Per return , 814,102,324.00
p 558,300.00
Deferred to succeeding period

Total , 8,009,192.00
806,093,132.00
Less: Disallowed input tax (importation &
Asian Angle Kunstrukt) 343,483.82
Total p 805,749,648.18
Less: Carry-over to previous quarter
VAT Payable per audit/investigation
5,059,657.50 800,689,990.68
, 801,248,290.68
31,932,544.52
Less: VAT payments for the year per VAT
return
Amount still due and payable , 13,945,586.70
17,986,957.82
Add : Increments
Surcharge , -
Interest (1.21.07 to 1 0.31.09) 9,993,849.44
Compromise 50,000.00 10,043,849.44
Total Deficiency VAT p 28,030,807.26
136
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 41 of 47
As can be gleaned from the above computation, the

deficiency VAT assessment arose from the following items:
a. Unrecorded sales on undeclared Petron purchases p 1,049,152.37

b . Sales to PSPC not subjected to output tax 85,946, 167.89
c . Income not subjected to output tax 4,418,775.00
d . Unrecorded sales on underclaimed importation 55,614,853.52
e. Disallowed input tax 343,483.82
f. Input tax carried-over to next quarter 5 ,059,657.50
This Court shall discuss each item hereafter.
a. Unrecorded sales on undeclared Petron purchases -

Pl,049,152.37
This assessment was based on the same examiner's

finding under the deficiency income tax assessment that
petitioner had undeclared sales in the amount of
P1,049,152.37 arising from undeclared purchases from Petron
for taxable year 2006. Citing Section 106 of the NIRC of 1997,
as amended, respondent imposed 12o/o VAT on the alleged
undeclared sales of P1 ,049, 152.37.
As discussed earlier, records show that for the year 2006,

petitioner's purchases from Petron amounted to
P29,543,034.46, broken down as follows:
Purchase from Petron reported as part of Cost of Sales per p 28,349,221.41

AFS and ITR
Purchases through Petron Fleet Card 1,193,813.05
TOTAL p 29,543,034.46
Petitioner properly reported the amount of

P28,349,221.41 as part of its cost of sales; while the amount
ofP1,193,813.05, by its nature, was not for resale and did not
form part of petitioner's cost of sales. It was erroneous on the
part of respondent to impute against petitioner an unrecorded
sales amounting to P1,049,152.37. Therefore, the deficiency
VAT assessment on this item should be cancelled for lack of
factual basis. {-
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 42 of 47
b. Sales to PSPC not subjected to output tax

P85,946,167.89
As earlier stated, this Court holds that respondent's

finding on petitioner's undeclared sales to PSPC is in order.
Hence, the corresponding deficiency VAT assessment is
likewise in order.
c. Income not subjected to output tax- P4,418,775.00
Invoking Section 106 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended,

respondent imposed 12°/o VAT on the amount of
P4,418,775.00 representing the discrepancy in petitioner's
taxable sales per income tax return/FS and per VAT returns ,
as computed below: 137
Per VAT Returns:

Vatable sales p 6,890 , 189, 183 .00
Zero-rated sales 6 1,61 5,9 24 .00
Total p 6 ,951 ,805 , 107. 00
PerFS:
Net sales p 6 ,942,969 ,690.00
Proceeds on disposal of
equipment 7,408,763.00
Trading/Terminal Income 91 ,2 52. 00
Other income 19,246.00
Income from cylinder deposits 5 ,734,931.00
Total 6,956,223,882.00
Discrepancy p (4,418, 775.00)
Petitioner contends that the difference between its sales

per income tax return (P6,942,969,690.00) and taxable sales
per VAT returns (P6,890,189,183.00) can be accounted for by
taking into consideration the zero-rated sales for 2006 and
adding it to the taxable sales per VAT returns. Petitioner
points out that the combined taxable sales per VAT returns
and zero-rated sales account for the entire sales per income
tax return. 138
This Court disagrees with petitioner. Zero-rated sales

amounting to P61,615,924.00 was included by respondent in
computing for the P4,418 ,775.00 sales discrepancy. Moreover,
adding the amount of P61,615,924.00 zero-rated sales to the
taxable sales per VAT returns of P6,890,189,183.00 wouldt
137
Docket, p. 560.
138
Exhibit "F". docket, p. 597.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 43 of 47
sum up to P 6,951,805,107.00 and not to the amount of

P6,942,969,690.00 sales reported per income tax return.
As can be seen from respondent's computation, the

discrepancy of P4,418,775.00 originated from petitioner's
unreported sales I income from disposal of equipment,
trading/terminal income, income from cylinder deposits and
other income. In the absence of contrary evidence, the
sales/income of P4,418,775 .00 shall be considered to have
been generated by petitioner in its ordinary course of business
and a 12o/o VAT should be imposed thereon pursuant to
Section 105 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states
that:
"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
The phrase 'in the ordinary course of trade or

business' means the regular conduct or pursuit of a
commercial or an economic activity, including
transactions incidental thereto, by any person regardless
of whether or not the person engaged therein is a non-stock,
non-profit private organization (irrespective of the
disposition of its net income and whether or not it sells
exclusively to members or their guests), or government
entity." (Emphasis supplied)
d. Unrecorded sales on underclaimed importation

P55,614,853.52
Since respondent's position that petitioner underclaimed

its importation for the year 2006 is devoid of legal and factual
bases, this Court holds that the corresponding deficiency VAT
assessment should be cancelled.{-
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 44 of 47
e. Disallowed input tax on overclaimed importation and on

overclaimed purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk -
P343,483.82
Respondent disallowed petitioner's input taxes for the

year 2006 in the aggregate amount of P343,483.82, broken
down as follows: 139
Gross Amount Input Tax

On overclaimed importation r 11 ,892 ,375.63 r 4 ,333.83
On overclaimed purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk 2 ,514,249.72 339,149.99
TOTAL p 14,406,625.35 p 343,483.82
The computation of input tax on petitioner's overclaimed

purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk is shown hereunder: 14 0
Amount Output/Input Tax

Asian Angle Konstruk Summary of Sales to Liquigaz r 5,192,358.85 r 585,643.04
Petitioner's Summary of purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk 7 ' 706 ,608.57 924,793.03
Difference p 2,514,322.72141 p 339,149.99
Since it has been ruled that respondent's assessment on

petitioner's overclaimed importation is void, the input tax
corresponding thereto should not be disallowed. On the other
hand, since respondent's assessment on petitioner's
overclaimed purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk has been
upheld, the input tax corresponding thereto should be
disallowed.
Thus, the disallowed input taxes for the year 2006 should
only be P339,149.99.
f. Input tax carried-over to next quarter- P5,059,657.50
It was improper for respondent to disallow petitioner's

excess input tax in the amount of P5,059,657.501 4 2 reflected in
its Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of 2006
because any tax benefit derived by petitioner from the carry-
over of the said amount redounds to the succeeding
quarter/year 2007. Since the tax benefit will be in the
succeeding quarter /year, at most, petitioner may only be
assessed in the said succeeding quarter I year. j_..
139
Exhibit "E-1 , docket, pp. 567 to 568 and "Exhibit "F", page 5, docket, p. 598.
140
Exhibit "E-1 ", docket, pp. 586 and 592.
14 1
Amount as found by BIR, see Exhibit "E-1 ", docket p. 567. However, as discussed earlier under item b
of deficiency income tax, amount should be P2,514,249. 72.
142
Exhibit "CC", line 27, docket, p. 740.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 45 of 47
Therefore, petitioner's basic deficiency VAT liability for

taxable year 2006 should be reduced to P6, 123,285.76,
computed as follows:
Taxable sales per return P6,890,189,183.00

Add: Adjustments
a. Sales to PSPC not subjected to output tax 85,946,167.89
b. Income not subjected to output tax 4,418,775.00 90,364,942.89
Adjusted taxable sales per audit p 6,980,554,125.89
Tax rates p 581,712,843.82143 10% 58,171,284.38
6,398,841,282.07144 12% 767,860,953.85
Output tax per audit/investigation p 826,032,238.23
Less: Input tax
Carry-over from previous quarter p 558,300.00
Per return p 814,102,324.00
Deferred to succeeding period 8,009,192.00
Total p 806,093,132.00
Less: Disallowed input tax (Asian Angle Konstruk) 339,149.99 805,753,982.01 806,312,282.01
VAT Payable per audit/investigation p 19,719,956.22
Less: VAT payments for the year per VAT return 13,945,586.70
Deficiency VAT p 5, 774,369.52
While respondent's right to assess petitioner of deficiency

VAT for the second quarter of 2006 had already prescribed,
petitioner was unable to point out which portion of the
assessment pertains to the prescribed period which is the
second quarter of 2006. Thus, this Court is constrained to
consider the en tire assessment as pertaining to the first, third
and fourth quarters of 2006.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for

Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assessments
issued by respondent against petitioner covering deficiency
income tax, value-added tax, expanded withholding tax, and
withholding tax on compensation for taxable year 2006 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly,
petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY respondent the reduced
amount of P81,806,081.69 , inclusive of the twenty-five
percent (25°/o) surcharge imposed under Section 248(A)(3) of
the NIRC of 1997, computed as follows: /
143
VAT rate was increased from I 0% to 12% effective February I, 2006 (RMC No. 7-06). Since it cannot
be ascertained to which months the adjusted taxable sales per audit pertained, the same was apportioned as
follows: P6,980,554, 125.89 x 1/12 x 10% and P6,980,554,125.89 x 11/12 x 12%.
144
Ibid.
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 8149
Page 46 of 47
Tax Type Basic Deficiency 25% Surcharge Total

Income Tax p 55,939,514.83 p 13,984,878.71 p 69,924,393.54
Value-added Tax 5,774,369.52 1,443,592.38 7,217,961.90
Expanded Withholding Tax 2,642,579.68 660,644.92 3,303,224.60
Withholding Tax on Compensation 1,088,401.32 272,100.33 1,360,501.65
Total p 65,444,865.35 p 16,361,216.34 p 81,806,081.69
In addition, petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY:
a) Deficiency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20o/o)

per annum on the basic deficiency income tax, value-
added tax, expanded withholding tax, and
withholding tax on compensation computed from the
dates indicated below until full payment thereof
pursuant to Section 249(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as
amended:
Deficiency Interest
Tax Type computed from
Income Tax April 15, 2007
Value-added Tax January 25, 2007
Expanded Withholding Tax Januanr 15, 2007
Withholding Tax on Compensation January 15, 2007
b) Delinquency interest at the rate of 20o/o per annum on

the total amount of P81,806,081.69 and on the 20°/o
deficiency interest which have accrued as aforestated
in (a), computed from October 31, 2009 until full
payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the
NIRC of 1997, as amended.
SO ORDERED.
~~-/-~/-
AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS
Associate Justice
CONCURS:
DECISION
CfA CASE NO. 8149
Page 47 of 47
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
LO
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution

and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
Presiding Justice

Special Third Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Third Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Third Division: Republic of The Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a Petition for Review filed by petitioner

Petitioner appeals the Formal Letter of Demandl (FLD)

petitioner for alleged deficiency tax liabilities, inclusive of

Petitio ner Liquigaz Philippines Corporation is a

Responden t is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

On April 16, 2007 , petitioner filed with the BIR its

For tc1x:1 blc year ending December 31, 2006, petitioner

Quarter Date of Filing of BIR Form No. 2550Q

Month Date of Filing of BIR Date of Filing of BIR

On August 31, 2007, the BIR issued Letter of Authority

On August 27, 2009, respondent issued a Notice of

On September 28, 2009, respondent issued a Preliminary

On October 20, 2009, petitioner received the FLD 40 dated

On November 19, 2009, petitioner filed its protest letter

On November 24, 2009, a Tax Verification Notice (TVN)

On January 18, 2010, petitioner submitted to BIR LTAID

Since no decision was issued by respondent on

On September 2 0 , 2010, respondent filed her Answer4 5 to

"7. Respondent adopts the abovementioned

Respondent's right to issue the

8. Contrary to petitioner's allegations, respondent's

9. Under Section 2.58 (C) of Revenue Regulations (RR)

10. As part of the Annual Information Returns (BIR

11. A taxpayer shall also be allowed to make its

12. Further, as provided under Section 77(B) of the

13. It must be noted that petitioner's tax deficiencies

14. On the other hand, petitioner's Value-Added Tax

15. In which case, the prescriptive period provided

Respondent's Formal Letter of

16. Respondent negates petitioner's allegation that

17. As shown in respondent's Formal Letter of Demand

Tax Deficiencies Basis Amount

18. In the case of Gerry Sevilla, Et Al us. CIR, the

'The p hrase in writing under Section 228 does

data compilation (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth

19 . Further, the CTA en bane ruled in the case of

'The simple meaning of procedural due process

In which case, the requirement of procedural due

20. Moreover, Annex A was also attached m

a. Unrecorded Sales on Undeclared Petron Purchases

The amount represents the gross income on

b. Overclaimed Purchases from Asian Angle Konstruk

The amount represents discrepancy as a result

Liquigaz per AITEID as compared to the amount of

c. Income Payments not subjected to Expanded

The above amount represents income payments

d. Salaries and Wages not subjected to Withholding

The above amount represents income payments

e. Unsupported Bad Debts Expense- P8,431,934.00

The above amount represents unsupported bad

f. Unrecorded Sales on Importation- P55,614,853.82

The amount represents the gross income on

g. Overclaimed Importation- P11 ,892,375.63

The amount represents discrepancy as a result