REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY
ENBANC
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Petitioner,
-versus-
COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE
HOLDINGS, INC.,
CTA EB No. 771
(CTA Case No. 7103)
Present:
Acosta, P.J.,
Castaneda, Jr.,
Bautista,
Uy,
Casanova,
Palanca-Enriquez,
Fa bon-Victorino,
Mindaro-Grulla, and
Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ.:
Respondent. Prom u I gated
JUL 1 9 2012
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DECISION
CASTANEDA, JR., J..:
Before Us is a Petition for Review assailing the Decision dated
September 15, 2010 ordering Covanta Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc. to pay
the reduced assessed amount of P601,404.77 representing its 2000 EWT
liability, inclusive of interest and penalties, in addition to deficiency and
delinquency interests, and the Resolution date.rl April 12, 2011 denying the fk--
DECISION
CfA EB Case No. 771 (CfA Case No. 7103)
Page 2 of 18
Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration both issued by
the Court of Tax Appeals ("CTA") First Division in the case entitled, "Covanta
Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue",
docketed as CTA Case No. 7103.
THE FACTS
Covanta Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc. ("CEPHI") is a corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines.
1
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") is a public official tasked
to decide disputed assessments, refund of erroneously or excessively paid
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties, or other matters
arising under the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC").
2
On January 23, 2004, the CIR issued final assessment notice with the
corresponding demand letter ("FAN") which was received by CEPHI concerning
its alleged calendar year 2000 value added tax ("VAT"), expanded withholding
tax ("EWT"), compromise penalty on withholding tax ("WT") on compensation
and documentary stamp tax ("DST") liabilities in the aggregate amount of
P2,196,138.04, detailed as follows: ?
1
Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, CfA Case No. 7103, p. 86.
2
Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues ,Docket, CfA Case No. 7103, p. 87.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 3 of 18
Value Added Tax
Expanded Withholding Tax
p 1, 252, 869.02
862, 804.35
1, 000.00
79 464.67
p 2, 196, 138.04
3
Compromise Penalty on Withholding Tax on Compensation
Documentary Stamp Tax
On March 18, 2004, CEPHI through Mr. Manolito P. Manalo protested the
FAN. It also submitted substantial documents in support of its protest.
4
On November 19, 2004, CEPHI paid the amount of P34, 309.83 in the
settlement of its DST liability.
5
Due to CIR's failure to act on the protest, CEPHI filed a petition for
review with the CTA's First Division on November 25, 2004.
In view of CEPHI's compliance with the tax amnesty law under R.A.
9480, on May 12, 2009, the Court in Division resolved to cancel and set-aside
the assessment for VAT and DST deficiencies for the year 2000.
6
In the Decision dated September 15, 2010, the Court in Division partially
granted the petition, ordered CEPHI to pay its 2000 EWT liabilities, inclusive of
interest and penalties in the reduced amount of P601,404.77, in addition to
deficiency and delinquency interests and cancelled the compromise penalty of
P1,000.00. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated September 15, 2010
reads:
3
Ibid.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The compromise penalty imposed on petitioner in the amount of Pl,OOO.OO is
hereby CANCELLED, while the assessment for deficiency expanded withholding
tax (EWT) issued by respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2000 is
MODIFIED. Petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY deficiency e x p n d e d ~
4
Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, p. 88.
5
Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, p. 91.
6
Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, pp. 889-890.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 4 of 18
withholdi ng tax in the amount of P601,404.77, inclusive of interest and penalties,
computed as follows:
BASIC DEFICIENCY EWT
p
220 701.39
Add: 25% Surcharge
p
55 175.35
20% Deficiency Interest 208,850.03
(up to October 18 2005)
20% Delinquency Interest 160,159.04 424,184.42
(P220,701.39 + P55,175.35
+P208,850.03)
X 20% - from February 23,
2004 to October 18 2005
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
p
644 885.81
Less: Voluntary payment
of deficiency EWT per Exhibit
"GGG"
Basic Tax
p
22 190.41
Interest up to October 18 2005 21,290.63 43 481.04
AMOUNT STILL DUE p 601,404.77
Additionally, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO PAY respondent the
following:
(a) deficiency interests at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on
basic expanded withholding tax of P198,510.98 (P220,701.39 less P22,190.41)
computed from October 19, 2005 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section
249 (B) of the NIRC of 1997; and
(b) delinquency interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum on
the total deficiency tax of P601,404.77 and on the 20% deficiency interest which
have accrued as afore-stated in (a), computed from October 19, 2005 until full
payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249 (C) of ti-Je NIRC of 1997.
SO ORDERED.
7
Dissatisfied, the CIR moved to reconsider the Decision dated September 15,
2010; however, the Court in Division denied the same for lack of merit as shown
in the Resolution dated April 12, 2011.
8

7
Rollo, pp. 24-55. Penned by Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and concurred in by Presidiny
Justice Ernesto D. Acosta and Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy.
8
Rollo, p. 70.
DECISION
CfA EB Case No. 771 (CfA Case No. 7103)
Page 5 of 18
THE ISSUES
Unfazed, the CIR appealed to the Court en bane raising the following issues:
I. The deficiency tax assessment is rendered final, executory and
unappealable.
II. The disputed assessments made are presumed valid and binding upon
respondent. No concrete and sufficient evidence was provided to
overcome such presumption as to the 2000 Ewr imposed on rentals,
professional fees paid to general professional partnerships, and
professional fees paid to Tecumseh.
9
On June 27, 2011, CEPHI filed its comment to the petition for review.
10
On July 22, 2011, the Court in Division issued a Resolution ordering the
parties to file their memoranda within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt
thereof.
11
In the Resolution dated October 5, 2011, the Court noted that both the CIR
and CEPHI signified that they wi ll be adopting their arguments in the Petition for
Review and Comment respectively, as their memorandum. Also on such date,
the Court in Division deemed the case submitted for decision.
THE COURT'S RULING
CEPHI 's TIMELY APPEAL AND
SUBMISSION OF RELEVANT SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS DID NOT RENDER THE
ASSESSMENT ON ITS 2000 EWT
DEFICIENCY FINAL, EXECUTORY AND
DEMANDABLE.
9
Rollo, pp. 11, 16, 18 & 19.
10
Rollo, p. 82.
11
Rollo, pp.100-101.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 6 of 18
According to the CIR, CEPHI protested the assessment on March 18, 2004.
The 180-day period within which the CIR is to act on the protest should be
reckoned from March 18, 2004 until September 14, 2004. CEPHI is given a
period of 30 days from September 14, 2004 or until October 14, 2004 withi il
which to elevate the case before the CTA. When the Petition for Review was
filed on November 25, 2004, the FAN became final, executory and unappealable
because the appeal to CTA was undertaken beyond the reglementary period.
Also, this Court has no jurisdiction over the case because the deficiency tax
assessments have already become final and executory due to CEPHI's failure to
submit all relevant documents. Under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, all
relevant documents in support of the protest on the assessment must be
submitted within 60 days from the filing of the protest. CEPHI did not present
all relevant documents such as journal vouchers and other supporting
documents; thus, the FAN on its EWT deficiency has become final and
executory. As regards with the withholding tax on compensation, CEPHI also
failed to submit the alpha list of employees for taxable year 2000 and proof that
it is willing to pay the compromise penalty.
CEPHI on the other hand, counters that the CIR acknowledged that it
submitted substantial documents.
We disagree with the CIR's posture.
A taxpayer contesting the assessment of internal revenue taxes is allowed to
avail of the following remedies specified in Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC: Jk--
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 7 of 18
"SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment -When the Commissioner or
his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be
assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided,
however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the
following cases:
XXX XXX XXX
"The taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on
which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.
"Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations,
the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer
fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative
shall issue an assessment based on his findings.
"Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request
for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt
of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by
implementing rules and regulations. Within (60) days from filing of the
protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted;
otherwise, the assessment shall become final.
"If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within
one hundred (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer
adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of
Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or
from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise,
the decision shall become final, executory and demnndable.
Under the law, a taxpayer is given a period of 30 days to administratively
protest the assessment and 60 days from the filing of protest to submit relevant
supporting documents. From receipt of an unfavorable ruling on the protest,
the taxpayer may appeal before the CTA within a period of 30 days. In the
event of inaction on the protest, the taxpayer may appeal within the same
period from the lapse of the 180-day period.
Although CEPHI mentioned in the letter protest that it submitted
documents when it filed its administrative protest on March 18, 2004, it also
made known in the letter protest that it reserves the right to submit additional Jr.-
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 8 of 18
documents. This being the case, the Court in Division correctly recognized
CEPHI's right to present additional evidence 60 days from protest under Section
228 of the 1997 NIRC, or until May 17, 2004. By law, the CIR is given 180 days
to rule on the protest. CEPHI's appeal on November 25, 2004 was timely filed
within 30 days from the expiration of the 180-day period pursuant to Section
228 as stated in the Resolution dated April 12, 2011. We quote:
In view of such reservation to submit additional documents
consistently made by petitioner and in accordance with Section 228 of the
NIRC, petitioner had 60 days from March 18, 2004, or until May 17, 2004
to submit any additional documents, if required or it subsequently
deemed necessary. Thereafter, respondent had 180 days, or until
November 13, 2004 to rule on the protest. Only upon the lapse of the
180-day period and within the subsequent 30 days or until December 13,
2004, that petitioner could exercise its option to appeal respondent's
inaction before this Court. Thus, the instant Petition was seasonably filed
on November 25, 2004Y
Moreover, on May 13, 2005, the parties have stipulated that CEPHI
submitted substantial documents in support of numerous issues in its protest.
13
CEPHI's compliance as to the presentation of pertinent document relative to its
protest was likewise emphasized in the CIR's answer to the petition.
14
In filing an administrative protest, the documents referred to in Section
228 of the 1997 NIRC are those which the taxpayer feels would be necessary to
support the protest and not what the CIR feels should be submitted;
12
Rollo, p. 67
13
Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, p. 88.
14
Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, p. 44.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 9 of 18
the taxpayer would always be at the mercy of the BIR which may require
production of such documents which taxpayer could not produce.
15
Clearly, the assessment on CEPHI's 2000 EWT deficiency has not become
final, executory and demandable due to its appeal with the CTA and submission
of relevant supporting documents within the prescribed period.
PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO GENERAL
PROFESSIONAL PARTNERSHIPS SUCH AS
ACCRA, SYCIP AND SGV ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO EWT.
CEPHI claims that the professional fees paid to several general professional
partnerships ("GPPs") such as ACCRA Law Office ("ACCRA"), Sycip Gatmaitan Law
and Hernandez Law Office ("Sycip") and SGV and Co. ("SGV") are non-taxable.
However, the CIR opposes the admissibility of exhibits pertaining to official
receipts on payment of professional fees to GPPs as proof of their contents.
These official receipts are hearsay evidence because the officials or authorized
representatives who prepared said documents were not presented as witnesses.
Any evidence whether oral or documentary should be considered as hearsay
when it is not based on the personal knowledge of a witness.
The CIR further alleges that CEPHI never presented as evidence the
contract it entered with the three law firms to prove that there was sufficiE:!nt
justification for the payments of professional fees. r
15
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Telengtan Brothers and Sons,
Inc., CTA EB Case No. 820, June 11, 2012 citing the case of Business One, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, CTA Case No. 6832, October 7, 2008. See Standard Chartered Bank-Philippine Branches v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 5696, August 16, 2001.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 10 of 18
CEPHI asserts that the CIR erroneously concluded that it should have
presented the officers who prepared the official receipts to prove that the income
payments to GPPs were non taxable.
The CIR's objection to the admissibility of CEPHI's exhibits is belated.
She did not file any comment or objection to CEPHI's formal offer of evidence
despite due notice.
The CIR failed to mention any law or regulation requiring that the
exemption of income payments to GPPs from withholding tax is dependent upon
the terms and conditions of contracts with GPPs.
The CIR's stance deserves scant consideration.
For tax purposes, a general professional partnership is an entity distinct
and separate from the partners. Under Section 26 of the 1997 NIRC, income tax
exemption only covers general professional partnership; while the partners in a
general professional partnership are liable to income tax. Section 2.57.5 of
Revenue Regulations 2-98 further states that exemption from withholding tax
extends to income payments made to persons enjoying exemption from payment
of income taxes.
16
fv
16
Goulds Pump Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 7057, February 4,
2011; Direct Container Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 7616, September
10, 2009; Metro, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. CTA Case No. 6356, June 9,
2009; and Sony Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.. TA Case No. 6185, October 26,
2004 all citing Rufino R. Tan v. Ramon R. Del Rosario, Jr., as Secretary of Finance and Jose U. Ong, as
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 109289 and 109446, October 3, 1994, 237 SCRA 324.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 11 of 18
The tax treatment of general professional partnerships and the partners is
echoed in the case of Rufino R. Tan v. Ramon R. Del Rosario, Jr., as Secretary of
Finance and Jose U. Ong, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue
7
in this wise:
"Exempt partnerships," upon the other hand, are not similarly identified
as corporations nor even considered as independent taxable entities for
income tax purposes. A general professional partnership is such an
example. Here, the partners themselves, not the partnership (although it
is still obligated to file an income tax return [mainly for administration
and data]), are liable for the payment of income tax in their individual
capacity computed on their respective and distributive shares of profits.
In the determination of the tax liability, a partner does so as an
individual, and there is no choice on the matter. In fine, under the Tax
Code on income taxation, the general professional partnership is deemed
to be no more than a mere mechanism or a flow-through entity in the
generation of income by, and the ultimate distribution of such income to,
respectively, each of the individual partners.
Contrary to the CIR's allegation, CEPHI's witness Ms. Rowena V. Guinto
verified that there are receipts issued proving payment of professional fees to
GPPs and explained the Ewr due on these fees.
In her supplemental sworn statement to questions propounded by Atty.
Jerome B. Arnalda marked as Exhibit "Q", Ms. Guinto stated that:
A: As shown in the summary under the heading "Non-Taxable Amount",
we paid the total amount of P537,200.00 to General Professional
Partnerships CGPPs''). Specifically, these GPP's were the ACCRA Law
Office, Sycip Salazar Gatmaitan & Hernandez Law Office, and SGV & Co.
We also paid a total of P21,545.52 as reimbursements for our out-of-
pocket expenses. Lastly, we paid a total of P1,565,715.45 to a non-
resident foreign corporation for services performed outside the
Philippines.
Q: You stated earlier that the EWT due on professional fees is only
P91,742.27. How much of this amount has the Petitioner already paid? jk-
17
G.R. Nos. 109289 and 109446, October 3, 1994, 237 SCRA 324-
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 12 of 18
A: The Petitioner paid P48,131.31 so there is still a deficiency of
P43,610.93.
Q: You mentioned that this summary was based on official receipts and
invoices. I am showing to you Exhibits "P-1" to "P-39". What is the
relation do these exhibits have to the official receipts and invoices that
you mentioned?
A: These are the official receipts and invoices that I was referring to.
(Emphasis supplied.)
18
These statements were affirmed during the hearing conducted last
September 14, 2005:
ATTY. ARNALDO:
Your Honors, may we request that the Supplemental Sworn Statement
be marked as Exhibit "Q" and that the witness's signature be marked as
Exhibit "Q-1 ".
JUSTICE CASTANEDA:
All right. Mark them.
ATTY. ARNALDO:
Q: Again, I am presenting to you your Supplemental Sworn Statement
Ms. Guinto. Do you reaffirm the contents of this Sworn Statement.
MS. GUINTO.
A: Yes.
19
On the basis of the receipts duly proffered by CEPHI, the Court in Division
correctly declared that the amount of P548,638.04 representing professional fees
paid to general professional partnerships and out-of-pocket expenses is not
subject to withholding tax. The Court in i v i s i o ~ explained that: ?'
18
Exhibit "Q". See Docket, CTA Case No. 7103, p. 647-654. See Resolution dated April 12, 2011, Rollo,
p. 68.
19
TSN dated September 14, 2005, pp. 15-16.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 13 of 18
After careful examination of the pertinent supporting documents in
relation to the above-quoted provisions of law and jurisprudence, this Court
finds that the amount of P548,638.04 (P537,200.00 plus P11,438.04),
representing professional fees paid to general professional partnerships and
out-of-pocket expenses duly supported by pertinent documents, should not be
subjected to withholding tax; while the rematntng out-of-pocket
expenses/reimbursements of P10,107.48 (P21,545.52 less P11,438.04) should
be subject to 10% withholding tax. The details of the amount of P548,638.04
are as follows:
Payee Exhibit Amount
GPPs Out-of-Pocket
Expenses/ Reimbursements
ACCRA Law P-2 P30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-4 36,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-7 P5,936.54
Office
ACCRA Law P-9 30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-11 30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-13 30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-15 30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-17 30,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-19 36,000.00 P5,501.50
Office
ACCRA Law P-25 36,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-28 36,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law P-31 78,000.00
Office
ACCRA Law (30,000.00)
Office
SGV & Co. P-37 140,000.00
Sycip P-38 25,200.00
Salazar
TOTAL PS37,200.00 P11,438.04
20
20
Rollo, pp. 42-43.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 14 of 18
Should the CIR treat the receipts showing payments by CEPHI to ACCRA,
Sycip and SGV as objectionable, she should have made it known to the Court in
Division within a reasonable period when CEPHI presented the same as its
evidence. But the CIR failed to make a timely objection. Under Section 36, Rule
132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the purpose of making an objection is to
warn and notify the court and the opposing counsel that a ruling is considered
erroneous and, if not corrected, will be the basis of an appellate review.
21
Due to
the CIR's failure to make a timely objection on the proffered receipts, these pieces
of documentary evidence are admissible.
THE COURT IN DIVISION'S FINDINGS ON
CEPHI's 2000 EWT IMPOSED ON
PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO TECUMSEH
AND ON RENTALS ARE DULY
SUBSTANTIATED.
Moreover, the CIR insists that the Memorandum Report dated December
28, 2004 prepared by revenue officers Dolores Somera and Minerva Dimaano
attest that the payment of professional fees of P1,565,715.45 made to Tecumseh
Energy Services Corporation, a domestic corporation doing business in the
Philippines, is a transaction subject to income tax or withholding tax on income
earned within and without the Philippines. CEPHI was not able to dispute the
allegation that Tecumseh is a non-resident foreign corporation and the payments
made were for services rendered outside the
21
People of the Philippines v. Cresencio Siccuan, eta!., G.R. No. 113790, Aprilll, 1997, 271 SCRA 168.
DECISION
CfA EB Case No. 771 (CfA Case No. 7103)
Page 15 of 18
In her Motion for Reconsideration, the CIR raised the same argument
before the Court in Division. We reiterate the Court in Division's pronouncements
on CEPHI's liability to 10% withholding tax on payments to Tecumseh Energy
Services Corporation:
The same is true insofar as the amount of P1,565,715.45 allegedly paid
to a non-resident foreign corporation for services performed outside the
Philippines. Petitioner was unable to establish that the transaction involved
a non-resident foreign corporation and the payments were for services
rendered outside the Philippines. That being the case, it should be subject
to a 10% withholding tax."
22
On account of rentals, the CIR relies again on the Memorandum Report
dated December 28, 2004 declaring that the assessments of correct withholding
taxes on rentals are lifted from various contracts of lease submitted by the
taxpayer. The contracts of lease disclose that the total rental expenses in the
year 2000 and advance rentals for the years 1999 and 2000 amounted to
P6,660,413.23, P1,575,263.13 and P2,135,789.48, respectively.
The CIR's contention is unmeritorious.
Considering that the Court in Division's findings on CEPHI's EWT deficiency on
rentals of P378,971.97 are based on the numerous contracts of lease
23
, the same
should be sustained. The Court in Division correctly computed CEPHI's 2000 EWT
deficiency on rentals as follows: ?-
22
Rollo, p. 69.
23
Rollo, p. 52. See Exhibits "W-1", "W-2", "W-3", "W-4", "W-17", "W-18", "W-31", "W-33", "W-36" and
"W-37.
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 16 of 18
Lessor Period Reference
Cam ira 8/15/99- Exhibit W-1
Holdings 10/14/00
10/15/00 -
11/02/00
11/03/00-
11/02/01
Advance
Exhibit W-2
Rental
Trixie 9/03/99- Exhi bit W-3
Brot hers 11/02/00
11/03/00- Exhibit W-4
11/02/01
Ofelia 9/03/99- Exhibit W-17
Chean 11/02/00
11/03/00- Exhi bit W-18
11/02/01
Federico 6/13/00 - Exhibit W-31
Galanq 6/13/01
Pan 7/25/ 99- Exhibit W-33
American 7/24/00
Advance Rental
7/25/00-
7/24/01
Jobeli z 9/01/99- Exhibit W-36
Realty 2/28/00
3/01/00-
8/31/00
9/1/00 - Exhibit W-37
2/28/01
3/01/01-
8/31/01
TOTAL Rental subject to EWT
X EWT Rate
EWT Due on Rentals
24
Rollo, p. 53.
Monthly Rental for Total
Rental Year 2000
(Net of
VAT)
p
85,000.00 P807,500.00
53,832.73 53,832. 73
79,500.00 159,000.00

238,500.00
-
40,860.63 408,606.30
34,901.78 69,803. 56 478,409.86
114,366.32 1, 143,663.20
97,687.89 195,375.78 1,339 ,038. 98
100,000.00 1,200,000.00 1, 200,000.00
210,526.32
2,640,000.00
231,578.95 2,640,000.00
52,631.58 315,789.48
57,894.74 347,368.44
i
663, 157.92
P7, 579,439.49
5/o
p 378,971.97
24
DECISION
erA EB Case No. 771 (CfA Case No. 7103)
Page 17 of 18
There being no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Court in
Division, CEPHI's 2000 EWT liability of P601,404.77, inclusive of interest and
penalties, in addition to deficiency and delinquency interests remain.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby
DISMISSED. The Court in Division's Decision dated September 15, 2010 and
Resolution dated April 12, 2011 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:

CAESAR A. CASANOVA
Oua..uh c.
C.
L....._,A-..
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice
Associate Justice

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA
Associate Justice

Associate Justice
DECISION
CTA EB Case No. 771 (CTA Case No. 7103)
Page 18 of 18
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above decision w ~ r e reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
L'-tS(. ~
ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Justice