Tullett Prebon Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. u. Commissioner of Internal Revenue decide claims for refund and/ or tax credit of overpaid or erroneously paid or collected internal revenue taxes. s On September 30, 2019, petitioner filed with the BIR Regular Large Taxpayers Audit Division II an Application for Tax Credits I Refunds (BIR Form No. 1914)6 with the letter dated August 7, 2019,7 requesting for the issuance of a tax credit certificate in the amount of P8,574,699.00 representing unutilized CWTs for CY 2017.

On April 8, 2020, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review.8 The Pre-Trial Conference was initially set on November 12, 2020.9 It was reset to March 11 , 2021, 10 then further reset to and finally held on May 20, 2021. 11 Prior thereto, respondent filed its Pre-Trial Brief on November 6, 2020, 12 while petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief on November 9 , 2020.13 The parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues on June 9, 2021. 14 The same was approved by the Court in a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, and Pre-Trial was deemed terminated.15 The Court issued the Pre-Trial Order dated July 7 , 2021. 16 On December 1, 2 02 1, respondent transmitted to this Court the BIR Records for this case, consisting of 672 pages in two (2) folders.17 Trial ensued, with both parties presenting and offering their respective documentary and testimonial evidence . Petitioner presented the following witnesses: ( 1) Mr. Philip G. Arabia,l8 petitioner's Finance Manager; and (2) Ms. Maria 5 Par. 1, Stipulated Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket- Vol. I, p. 281.

6 Exhibit "P-7-a", Docket- Vol. II , p. 569. 7 Exhibit "P-7", Docket - Vol. II , pp. 566 to 568. 8 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 14 to 22.

9 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference dated September 14, 2020, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 83 to 85. 10 Order dated November 18, 2020, Docket- Vol. I, p. 25 1. I I Order dated March 9, 202 1, Docket- Vol. I, p. 263; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, May 20, 202 1, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 265 to 266-A. 12 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 89 to 9 1.

13 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 235 to 25.

14 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 28 1 to 286.

15 Docket- Vol. I, p. 296.

16 Docket- Vol. I, pp. 299 to 309.

17 Compliance dated December 1, 2021, Docket - Vol. I, pp. 445 to 447. 18 Exhibit "P-13", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 96 to 106; Order dated July 8, 2021 , Vol. I, pp. 318-319, and Minutes of the Hearing held on July 18, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 310 to316.~

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Gracia L. Morfe, 19 the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA).20 The ICPA submitted her Amended Report on November 29, 2021.21 On December 14, 2021, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.22

Respondent

submitted his

Comment

(On Petitioner)s Formal Offer of Evidence) on December 20, 2021. 23 In a Resolution dated March 21, 2022,24 the Court admitted petitioner's exhibits, except for: ( 1) Exhibit "P-1 ," for failure of the document offered and identified to correspond with the document marked· (2) Exhibits "P-25 " "P-328 " "P- ' ' ' 34 7 " "P-1342 " "P-1871 " and "P-2050 " for not being found in ' ' ' ' the records of the case; and (3) Exhibits "P-751 to P-753," for not being found in the records of the case. Upon petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated March 21 1 2022) filed on April 18, 202225 without respondent's comment or opposition26 the Court admitted Exhibits "P-1 ," "P- 25," "P-278- 1 ," "P-1342," and "P-1871."27 For his part, respondent presented Revenue Officer Cheryl G. Arbues as his lon e witn ess.28 Respondent filed his Formal Offer of Evidence on September 30, 2022.29 Petitioner filed its Comment (Re: Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence) on October 13, 2022.30 In a Resolution dated November 2 1, 2022, the Court admitted all of respondent's offered exhibits.31 19 Exhibit "P-14", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 390 to 402; Order dated November 23, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 4 17 to 419.

2o Oath of Commission dated July 8, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, p. 314; Order dated J uly 8, 2021, Docket- Vol. I, pp. 3 15 to 316 .

.l1 Exhibit "P-2146", Docket - Vol. I, pp. 427 to 444. Although not marked, the submission thereof was a llowed by the Cou rt, and the identification thereof was stipulated by the parties. See Transcript of Stenographic Notes for hearing held on November 23, 2021 , pp. 13 to 16.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Petitioner filed its Memorandum on December 28, 2022.32 Respondent failed to file a memorandum.33 The case was submitted for decision on January 30, 2023.34

THE ISSUES

The sole issue for resolution of the Court in this case, as stipulated by the parties, is the following: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to its claim of refund of or issuance of a TCC for P8,574,699.00, representing petitioner's alleged excess and unutilized creditable withholding taxes (CWT) for calendar year (CY) 2017.35 Petitioner's arguments Petitioner argues that it filed its administrative and judicial claims for the refund or tax credit of excess and unutilized CWTs for CY 20 17 within the two-year prescriptive period provided under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the Tax Code. It avers that its claim of P8,574,699.00 is duly substantiated, that the income upon which the same were withheld is reported as part of the revenues declared in its annual income tax return, and that it did not exercise the option to carry over the same to the succeeding taxable period. Hence, petitioner asserts that it is entitled to its claim for refund or tax credit of P8,574,699.00 representing its excess and unutilized CWTs for CY 2017.

Respondent's counter-arguments Respondent counters that petitioner failed to submit documents in support of its claim and that its application for refund or tax credit is pro forma. Consequently, there is no proper compliance with the requirement of the law that an administrative claim should have been made before instituting a judicial claim. Respondent insists that petitioner has th e

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue burden to establish its claim for refund or tax credit, and that su ch claim should be construed strictly against petitioner for th e same partake the nature of a tax exemption.

THE COURT'S RULING

The present Petition for Review is partly meritorious. Aside from compliance with Section 76 of the National

Internal Revenue Code

of 1997, as amended (NIRC), jurisprudence and pertinent BIR Revenue Regulations outline the followin g requisites for a valid claim of refund or tax credit of excess unutilized CWTs:

1. The claim must be filed within the two-year prescriptive period under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC;

2. The fact of withholding must be established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withh olding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and,

3. The income upon which the taxes were withheld must be included in the retu rn of the payee or recipient.36 For the orderly disposition of this case, the Court shall first discuss petitioner's compliance with Section 76 before delving into each of the above enumerated requ isites.

Petitioner

complied with

Section 76 of the NIRC and

has not carried over the CWTs claimedfor refund.

Section 76 of the NIRC 1s quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"SEC. 76.

Final Adjustment Return. -

Every

corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during 36 Citibank N.A. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107434, Oct . 10, 1997; ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96322, Dec. 20, 1991; United International Pictures AB vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 16833 1, Oct. 11, 20 12; Section 2.58, Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended.~

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either:

(A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option sha ll be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no a pplication for cash refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate sh all be allowed therefor." Said provision grants two options to a taxable corporation whose total quarterly income tax payments in a given taxable year exceed its total incom e tax due: 1.) carry-over the excess amount to the succeeding taxable quarters or years until it is fully utilized; or 2.) file a claim for refund (either in the form of cash or tax credit certificate). However, once the carry-over option is made, it becomes irrevocable for that taxable period. 37 The phrase "for that taxable period" qualifies the taxes paid during the taxable year to which the option to carry over was applied; it does not su ggest that the option to carry-over can still be changed in the next taxable period.38 A perusal of petitioner's Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for CY 201739 shows that it had income tax credits in the total amount of P28, 146,553.00, consisting of the following: (i) Prior year's excess tax credits in the amount of P19,571,854.00; and , 37 Rhombus Energy, Inc. vs . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 206362, Aug. 1, 201 8.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

(ii) CWTs accumulated during the four (4) quarters of CY 2017 in the total amount of P8,574,699.00.40 Petitioner claims that it paid its minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) due for CY 2017 amounting to P898,826.00 using a portion of its prior year's excess credits. This leaves a total ofP27,247,727.00 unutilized as of December 31 , 2017, as shown below:

Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT p 19,571,854.00

Less: Tax Due (M CIT)

898,826.00

Balance of Prior Year's Excess Credits

p 18,673,028.00

Add: Creditable Taxes Withheld - CY 2017

8,574,699.00

Excess Creditable Taxes Withheld as of

p 27,247,727.00 December 31, 2017 Under Section 2.58.3 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2- 98, the submission of petitioner 's Annual ITR for CY 2016 is sufficient to prove its "Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT" in the amount ofP19,571 ,854.00. Said provision states: "Sec. 2.58.3. Claim for tax credit or refund. -

X XX

(C) Excess Credits. - An individual or corporate taxpayer's excess expanded withholding tax credits for the taxable quarter /year shall automatically be allowed as a credit against his income tax due for the taxable quarters/years immediately su cceeding the taxable quarters/years in which the excess credit arose, provided he submits with his income tax return, a copy of the first page of his income tax return for the previous taxable period showing the amount of his excess withholding tax credits, and on which return he h as not opted for a cash refund or tax credit certificate." [Emphasis supplied] Here, petitioner presented its Annual ITR for CY 2016 showing excess tax credits am ounting to P30,847,724.00,41 which con sisted of p rior year's excess credits in the amount of P19,57 1,854 .00 a nd CWTs during CY 2016 in the amount of P11,275,870 .00. Petitioner opted to be issu ed a tax credit certificate only for the CWTs during CY 2 01 6.42 Thus, the prior

Tullet Prebon {Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue year's excess credits ofP19,571 ,854.00 was carried over to CY 20 17 . The latter was automatically allowed as credits to be applied against its MCIT due for CY 2017 in the amount of P898,826.00,43 while its CWTs during CY 20 17 in the amount ofP8,574,699.00 remained unutilized as of the end of the same period.

In its Annual ITR for CY 2017, petitioner indicated its option to be issued a tax credit certificate for its excess and unutilized CWTs for CY 2017.44 That such CWTs were not carried over in the succeeding taxable periods is reflected in petitioner's Quarterly ITRs and Annual ITR for CY 2018, which reflects only the amount of f>18,673,028.00 and excludes the amount off>8,574,699.00 representing the CWTs for CY 2017. Considering the foregoing, the excess and unutilized CWTs during CY 2017 in the amount of f>8,574,699 .00 may therefore be the subject of a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate under Section 76 of the NIRC. We now proceed to discuss petitioner's compliance with the three requisites for entitlement to refund or tax credit of excess unutilized CWTs.

Petitioner filed its claim for refund within the two-year prescriptive period Section 204(C) of the NIRC provides that "[n]o credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty."

Relative thereto, Section 229 states that "[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected x x x or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner." The same provision further states that "no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment x x x."

In other words, at the time petitioner's claims were filed, the rule is that an administrative claim must precede the judicial claim, and both claims must be filed within the two- year prescriptive period. It is settled in jurisprudence that the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund or tax credit of overpaid income tax or CWTs commences to run on the date of the filing of the Final Adjustment Return45 (or Annual ITR). This is so because only then would the taxpayer know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures. It is only upon the filing of the Final Adjustment Return can it be determined whether the taxpayer paid an amount exceeding its annual income tax liability. 46 Here, petitioner filed its Annual ITR47 on April 13, 2018 via the electronic filing and payment system (or eFPS) of the BIR, and manually filed the same with the BIR on April 24, 2018.48 Counting two years from April 13, 2018, which is considered the date of the filing of the final adjustment return,49 petitioner h ad until April 13, 2020 within which to file its administrative and judicial claims. Petitioner filed its adminis trative claim on Septemb er 30, 2019,50 while the present judicial claim was filed on April 8, 2020. 5 1 Thus, both administrative and judicial claims were seasonably filed within the two-year prescriptive period. 45 ACCRA Investments Corporation v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96322, Dec. 20, 1991; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc. and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83736, J an. 15, 1992; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Philippine American Life Insurance Co., et al., G.R. No. 105208, May 29, 1995.

4 6 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.l82582,Apr. l 7,2017.

47 Exhibit "P-2", Docket - Vol. I, pp. 475 to 482. 48 Exhibit "P-3", Docket- Vol. I, pp. 483 to 49 1. 49 Per Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 24-2018 [SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Filing, Receiving a nd Processing of 20 17 Income Tax Returns Including Its Attachments], Taxpayers who are mandated to use the eFPS under exis ting issuances sha ll file a nd pay directly u s ing the eFPS facil ity. However, taxpayers who electronically filed sha ll a lso submit a copy of the electronically filed lTR with Filing Reference Number (FRN) thru eFPS facility, togeth er with the required a ttachments, within fifteen (1 5) days from the deadlin e of filing or da te of electronic filing of th e return, whichever comes la ter. Hence, the coun ting of the two-year prescriptive period is reckoned from the date of the filing of the fina l adjustment return via eFPS. so Exhibits "P-7" and "P-7 -a", Docket - Vol. II, pp. 566 to 569.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Petitioner has proven the fact of withholding of its CWTsfor CY 2017 but only to the extent of P7, 115,784.67 The second requisite m andates petitioner to prove the fact of withholding of the claimed CWTs through a copy of the statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) showing the n ames of the payor and the payee, the income payment, and the amount of tax withheld therefrom.s2 In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine National Bank, 53 the Supreme Court held that the Certificate of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307), complete in relevant details, is the competent proof to establish the fact that taxes are withheld.

In this case, to prove the fact of withholding of th e claimed CWTs, petitioner presented the pertinent BIR Forms No. 230754 issued by its clients and its Schedule of CWTs Subject for Refund 55 for CY 20 17. These were examined by the ICPA. Based on the findings of the ICPA, the following CWTs in the amount of P876,356.67 were not properly supported with BIR Forms No. 2307:

Reference to

CWT Amount

!CPA Report CWT certificates reflecting an amount lower

Annex 2

p 16 1,262.55 than the amount of claims CWT certificates that are scanned or

Annex 3

541 ,927.07 photocopies only CWT without certificates

Annex 4

173,167.05

Total

f' 8 76,356.67 As to the amount ofP161,262.55 pertaining to petitioner's overclaimed CWTs, th ere shall be an adjustment in the amount of P749.98 as detailed below, due to the !CPA's incorrect appreciation or determination of the amounts of CWTs per BIR Form No. 2307 in Annex 2 of its !CPA Report: 52 Section 2.58.3(B), RR No. 2-98.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

PHILIPPINE

BUSINESS

BANK

MAYBANK

PHILIPPINES

INC

CHINA TRUST

(PHILIPPINES)

COMMERCIAL

BANK CORP

P6,604.42 !'6,064.38 43,41 0.27 43,210.24 8,332.24 8,322.26

Total Adjustment

P540.04 P 6,604.38 200.03 43,410.24 9.98 8,332.26 P0.04 t>540.00 0.03 200.00 (0.02) 9.9857 1"749.98 Consequently, based on the findings of the ICPA, the CWTs amounting to P875,606.69, i.e. P876,356.67- P749.98, shall be disallowed for being unsupported by valid BIR Forms No. 2307.

In addition to the above disallowances, CWTs in the amount of P583 ,307.57 shall likewise be disallowed due to the grounds stated hereunder:

Exhibit No.

Client Name

CWT Amount

CWTs supported by BIR Forms No. 2307 dated outside the period of claim

"P-52"

DEUTSCHE BANK AG

p 7 ,221.59

"P- 107"

STERLING BANK

6,216.9 1 CWTs supported by BIR Forms No. 2307 but the CWT amounts per BIR Forms No. 2307 are lower than the CWT amounts per claim

"P-66"

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA

137.19 (1>30,738.07 per claim less 1'30,600.88 per 2307)

"P-70"

LAND BANK OF TH E PHILIPPINES

2 ,034.00 (t'6, I 02.00 per claim less 1'4,068.00 per 2307)

"P-58"

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF TH E PHILIPPINE

1,420.38 (P4,261 . 15 per cla im less t>2,840.77 per 2307)

"P-1 02"

SECURITY BANK CORP

14,759.84 (P29,603.68 per claim less Pl4,843.84 per 2307)

"P- 132"

AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD

6,423.37 (tl82,991.85 per claim less 1'76,568.48 per 2307)

"P-209"

SECURITY BANK CORP

28,567.90 (P48,397.23 per claim less P19,829.33 per 2307)

"P-433"

SECURITY BANK CORP

459.33 (P33,903.29 per claim less P33,443.96 per 2307) 56 Exhibits "P-193", "P-286", and "P-377", USB. 57 The amount of adjustment was limited only to the P9.98 overclaim included in Annex 2 of the !CPA Report. r

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

"P-433"

SECURITY BANK CORP

(1"35,126.56 per claim less P34,887.39 per 2307) The exhibit reference for the purported supporting BIR Form No. 2307 does not pertain to the client p er the schedule of claim

"P-61"

FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORP

The exhibit references for the purported supporting BIR Forms No. 2307 already pertained to oth er p eriod and/or income payment and CWT amounts

"P- 1 00"

SECURITY BANK CORP

"P-166"

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

"P-100"

SECURITY BANK CORP

"P-169"

INTERNATIONAL NEDERLAND BANK

"P-207"

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP

"P-207"

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP

CWT with exh ibit reference but the same was withdrawn as offer by petitioner in its Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated March 2 1, 2 0 22)58

"P-328"

STERLING BANK

CWTs without s upporting BIR Forms No. 2307

CITIBANK NA

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

SECURITY BANK CORP

SECURITY BANK CORP

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP

AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD

AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP

Total

239.17 6,969.86 38,393.61 6,906.95 36,755.80 30,959.31 34,4 19.85 22,220.25 800.00 22,129.94 61,622.52 57,183.37 73,790.73 5,077.97 5,400.00 14,429.31 33,465.79 16,041.9 1 8,005.72 41 ,255.00 P583,307.57 Thus, insofar as its compliance with the second requisite is concerned, petitioner has proven the fact of withholding of its CWTs for CY 2017 to the extent ofP7,115,784.67, computed as follows:

ss Docket - Vol. II , p. 634, par. 21.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CWT per s chedule of claim

Less: Disallowances

Per ICPA findings Per Court's further verification

Total

Net Am ount Petitioner has proven that it dec Zared the income upon which the substantiated CWTs were withheld as part of its gross income but only with respect to

CWTs

amounting to P6 ,978, 758.87

CWT Amount

p 8,574 ,698.93 p 8 75,606.69 583,307.57 p 1,458,9 14.26 p 7 ,115,784.67 In complian ce with the third requisite, i.e. the in come payment upon which the taxes were withheld must be included in the return of the payee or recipient, 59 petitioner presented its Annual Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for year ended December 3 1, 20 17 ,6o Billing Invoices,6 1 Official Receipts,62 and General Ledgers (GLs) for CYs 20 16 and 201 7.63 As aptly found by the ICPA, the revenue (brokerage fees - n et of discounts) reported per petitioner's Annual ITR and AFS for CYs 201 6 and 2 01 7 in the resp ective a mounts of P l21,000,6 76.0064 and P96,028,880.0065 tallies with the amounts reported as Net Brokerage per the Summary of Revenue Ledger [Annexes 7 (for CY 2 01 7) & 9 (for CY 2016) of ICPA Rep ort] for the sam e period as derived from petitioner's GLs .

However , a verification of the Summary of Revenue Ledger and the Sch edule of CWT subject for refund (Annex 1 of ICPA Report) reveals that out of the in come paym ents upon wh ich the substantiated CWTs of P7 , 115 ,784.67 were withheld , the amount of Pl ,4 90 ,053.23, as detailed below, with the corresponding CWTs of Pl37,025.80 were not traced in the 59 Section 2.58.3 (8), RR No. 2-98.

60 Exhibit "P-3-a", Docket - Vol. II, pp. 492-543. 6t Exhibits "P-456" to "P-1396" a nd "P-2 117 to "P-2 144", USB.

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue revenues per GLs. Hence, such amount was not established as forming part of the gross income declared by petitioner in its

Annual ITRs for CYs 2016 and 2017:

Income payment per BIR Form No. 2307 or per CWT claim Per Annex 7 or 9 of ICPA Report (the lesser of the two amounts)

Client Name

Exhibit Invoice

No./ Amount Exhibit Net Brokerage Reference No.

105504 P 156,734.55 P 96,060.86 P 9,606.09

JP MORGAN 105449

CHASE BANK NA 306,008.80 85,353.85 220,654.95 22,065.50 LAND BANK OF « is Amount not traced to GL/invoice

CWT Amount

INTERNATIONAL

NEDERLAND

BANK

P 252,795.41 146”)

RIZAL

COMMERCIAL

BANKING CORP

fAamex To 506,708.17 |] panco pe oro | 1CPAREPOT | 30,405.80 105750 | 10,500.00 | a P 597,203.17 233,202.63 23,320.26 =P.866" | 105835 | 128,00000[ -p-1213* | 105898 | 68,960.00 | ______ seaoe | rosrs [18013900] [spsie" | 105786 | _a3,sa388[ «i —SSSCS—~d [Pse6" | 105855 [ _ 56,00000[ | + ain, s0[_aaarao | _ anna | a [seris\ | 105687 | 106,736.21 [ + +d 327,691.68 [eras [105717 | 56,000.00] +i SSS 312,066.99 | __1869a.69 | _1, 562.87 |

STANDARD

CHARTERED

BANK LIMITED

UNION BANK OF

THE PHILIPPINES

BANKING GROUP | (see also “P- 263,549.70 | _“P-968 gest Be 16 LTD 238”) | se 134,604.10 128,945.60 12,894.56 sae | Tem | aati | BANK OF THE io pea spas 2 6,500.00 PHILIPPINE eport 318,405.50 |_“P-943"_| 105912 | 136,50000[ ss TC 3 (see also “P-

ISLANDS Sees

Annex 1 of

108906 [585,868.21 [ 253”) re ee 238,016.69 23,801.67 6) *p-1o28" | 105907 [112,000.00 [ : F547, 315391 7B (see also “P- 85,503.50 8,550.35 331")

BANK OF TOKYO-

MITSUBISHI UFJ “P-340" 71,712.80 105973 70,702.80 1,010.00

LTD

101.00 Annex 1 of “P-956" | 105925 woo7o08 | t—(‘iEC

ICPAR

oe "P98" | 105950 200000 SiS pL 192,474.08 155,468.22 15,546.82

BANCO DE ORO

Annex 1 of

ICPA Report

STERLING BANK 85,503.50

UNION BANK OF

THE PHILIPPINES

347,942.30 343”) ASIA UNITED bis gered BANK (ace alan *P- 79,770.40 | “P-1304" | 106286 75,770.73 3,999.67 399.97

CORPORATION 351°)

| Total = =©=©6|)6—~—<“—;~*~sSY SSS 208,280.44 | | sds 718,227.21 | P1,490,053.23 | 137,025.80

Oy

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Thu s, ou t of the substantiated CWTs in th e amount of P7, 115,784.67, only P6,978,758.87 satisfied the third requ isite as shown below:

Properly substantiated CWTs f> 7,115,784 .67 Less: CWTs, the incom e payments of which were not 137,025.80 traced to G Ls

Valid CWTs

p 6 ,978,758.87 Verily, petitioner sufficiently proved its entitlement to the refund of or issuance of a tax credit certificate for its excess and unutilized CWTs for CY 20 17 but only to the extent of P6,978,758.87.

WHEREFORE, in light of th e foregoing consideration s, the present Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Respondent is hereby ordered to refund petitioner the amount of P6,978,758.87 representing the latter's excess and unutilized CWTs for the CY ended December 31 , 2017.

WE CONCUR:

~'7--~ CATHERINE T . MANAHAN

Associate Justice

ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO

Presiding Justice

~ ~ F ~Jk .. 1:: ,~ MARIAN IviJF. REY{S~AJ~RDO

Associate Justice

Tullet Prebon (Philippines) Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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's Division.

Presiding Justice