CTA Case No. 4224

DECISION -

- 2 - and dividends are subJect to innome tnx pursuant to the provisions of Secti on 27 (nor.;

26) of the Tax

Code.

The 1980 Income Tax Return filed by petitioner reflected a net loss of P29,988.88 on its taxable operation due to the offsetting of the loss i11curred .in its non - taxable opel'ation against the income from the taxable ope.ra ti on. (pp.4S & BIR record;;)

Upon

investigation of pet.itioner ' s inte1·nal revenue tax liabilities fo1· 1980, respondent dis<'dlowed as ... 7 deduction fz-om petitioner ' s taxable income, the amount of P671,215.97 .representing the said loss incurred by petitioner fl"OID .its char.i table and educa ti on ... 7l operations . As a consequence, in a letter dated April 7, 1986, respondent assess e d pet.itioner _for deflcienpy income tax in the amount of P343, 087.17 for the year 1980, as follor.rs: (Annex A .• p.-3 .• CTA records) !}ef.Jo.ienoY JJl.OQ.me_ T.a.x ... _-::: ... 1.8.80 Net taxable .iJwome..... f,~ -~1,4.:4,~Clfl:

Income tax due ......... P214,429.48 Add: 20.'f .in t. fr. 4/16/81 to 4/16/84............. 128,657.69

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND

COLLECTIBLE . - . . . . . . . . . . /;S"'4 ,~,_J!JJ,l-':.J . 7, On Apri.l 25, 1986, petitioner pz·otested the assessment, which protest was denied by respondent in a letter dated October 20, 1987.

.DECISION -

- 3 -

Hence

the present recourse.

The parties submitted the case for decision based on the pleadings sans memoranda. The so.le issue for resolution is whether or not the loss incu.r·J"ed by petitioner in its tax- exempt operation may be deducted fz-om the income of its taxable operation.

Peti t .ioner contends that the loss from its tax-exempt opez-ation is deductible fz·om its taxab.Ze g1·oss income by virtue of Section 30(d)(2) of the Na tiona] In te1·nal Revenue Code which pz-ovi des tlui t a corporation may deduct from g1·os s income "all losses actually sustt'll.ned tmd charged off within the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise". With this, We are unable to ~~gree. As a non - stock, non-p1·ofi t charitable organization, peti ticmer 's tax exemption is governed by Section 27 (now Sect.ion 26) of the

National

Internal

Revenue

Code, the pertinent p1·ovisions of which follow: Section 27. Exemptions from tax on corporations- The following o1·ganlzatlons sball not be taxed unde1· this Tl tle in respect to income received b.v them as such-

XXX

XXX

XXX

DKCISJON -

- 4 - (e)

Corponition

or as sociation organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, sc.tentif.tc, athl etic, or cultural purposes, or for the rebabili t .. "ition of vete1·ans no part of the net income of whi ch inures to the benefl t of any p.ri vate stockholde1· or individual.

XXX

XXX

XXX

Notwl thstandlng the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind t'lnd cha.racte1· of the forego ing organizations from any of their p1·operties, real or personal, or from any of their activities condlJcted for profl t, rega1·dless of the disposition mtide o f such income, sh.:-111 be subject to the t ax impose d under this Code. (A s amended by

PD 1457)

In the N.3tional Internal Revenue Code enacted by Commonwealth Act No. 466 and appro ved on ,Tune 15, 1939, the .. "'bovequoted .last proviso as .. "'ttached to Section 27(e) t h en read: Prov.ided, hor.;ever, that income of whatever kind Bnd charact:ez- from any of 1 ts properties, I"eAl or persona_l, excep t income expressly ext=~mpted by th.ts Law, shall be li8ble to the tax imposed unde.r this Chapter.

Tbis provision r-ws .. "#mended in 1946 by Republic Act No . 82.

The opinion of t he tl1en Secn~tar.v of Justi ce as to the significance of such amendment, as published in BIR G. C. No.

V- 287 dated April 7, 19!59 is quoted hereunder: Tbe fin:>t relevant amendment is the addi ti on of the phrase, ·.r.:~g~n1It;~.sJ}

_ Qf

.tbe. .. dl $PQ$i t.J.Qn_ made .o:f. _s.tJdL inc.om~ . · Lt.

ls. ._ .. ~vld~nt ..... -tlutt ... tbJ.Q. __ wat.L ... lntended . t.o ·,.; ' ?2

DECISl"ON -

- 5 - s.,7.l8.Xi ;f Y .. the_ . .PJU''.PQB ~ ··-· O.:l. _ tlHL.P .t:c, .. 1 V Jp_ Q ._ .Hh i. C b

i. .. ~L .. .. t.o. ....... Pl ~.o.c ... b.eYQnd .. _ .. the ... _ P.t~.r.v.J. eH_ of ... ... the _e.x.e.mP.t..i..oJL ... inc.ome. . ...:f.roffi _ l ~eq_.J_ e.JJd _pe r6..on.~'i 1 Pr..o.P.e..l~Li. e.9.. ....... et.Yf3!n. ..... -t f ... the. .... fifl.me ... .w~"ltJ .. c~s.ed .... f.o.r l._.e.Jj_gJ._qiJ$ ........ o.c .. ot.het.~ ...... ~x.~mp_t_ ___ p_t!J_.Pos.es... . B.v this amendmen t __ Wf!.t..i.nat.i .olJ .. of_.Ru.ch .. J.ncQme J.R. .... no ..... J.pngeJ. ~ ...... tbe.. ..... t~P...J; ..... Qf ___ the ... e.xe.m.P.J:iQJJ.. .. As expressed in the explanatory note of the ~~mendatory bill, the prevailing sentiment was that an exempt organization which derives income f1·om rentals or investments of it:s properties should be made to pay the i11come tax Jn the same manne1· as other co1·pora ti ons o.r individuals.

(Underlining Our:;)

Another signl fl cant clh'inge in the proviso is the insertion of the pJu.-ase or from any ao ti vi ty conduc ted for profit, ' which r es t:ricts further the exemption by excluding therefrom income from any business ven tu.l'e or activity of the exempt organization.

XXX

XXX

.XXX '"Considering the history of the provision in question, it would seem that the statute as now amended has restr.·.tr.ted the tax exemption of religi 011~.

educationa.l 8nd other organi z ation therein spt-.:~cl:fl ed only to the extent of withdrawing the exf•mption with respect to income realized ( a) from tJu~ productl ve use of th eir rea.l ,""'nd personal properties e.g. 1 rents dJ vi den cis, or .in tereA t and (b) from profitable lms l11ess pursuits, whi cb properties or businesses are not essentil'll to, or ne c ess ~'irily connected wi t h, their .relig.io11s, charit~'ible, or educational pu:rposes, etc. 1 as the case may be... (Opinion No .

45, Serles of 1959) It is clea1· from the fo1·egolng lnte.rpretatlon tlMt the legislative intent ln ~<":lmendlng the proviso

in Section

27 by the insertion of the phrase '"regardless of tbe dlsposl t .ton made of such income·· \.) i - 6 - is to tax the income fn:>m !'eal .<wd pe1·son.::fl pz·ope.rtles ol' from any aeti vi ty conducted for profit of exempt oz-ganiz~~tions eve11 if used for .religious, clua·J. table oz· othez· exempt Pl1J'pose. In otber WOl'dB, the taxable income of such org~'wiza tio11s sbould be treated ,-qs sepani te and distl.JJct from tbeir tax- exempt i11come foz· Plll'POBes !11 which case, the defl.cl.t l.JJcur1·ed in the tax-exempt oper."ltions c.-:wnot be set off agal.JJst the J.ncome from t.'!x.<=tble 01 eratio11s.

Tbe

slJbsequent deletioJJ of the s ubJect pz·ovisl.on from subsecticm(e) of Section 27 by Presidentl,<=tl Dec1·ee No. 1457 which took effect on ,Tu11e 11, 1978 and the transposition of the same as the l ... '!st par,qgraph of the same Section t o cover all exempt organizations under that Section, lends support to Ol.ll' co11clusl.on.

Conform8bly, the 1 oss suffered by petitioner from its fully exempt opel'.._"ltl.o.n c.._qnnot be <'fllowed as a deductio11 from its taxable income. Pe ti tl.onez· insl.sts th ... ~ t respo11den t ' s predecesso1· had al1·e ... ~dy 1·uled mo1·e tban twenty yea1·s be.fo1·e tiM t 1.11 repo1·tJ.ng 11e t l ncome, s uch operatl.11g losses may be deducted from 1 ts taxable income, to wit:

(p.

74~ BIR records) ?4

DECISION --

CTA CASK NO. 4224 December 15, 1966

Padilla Law Office

6th floor, Shurdut BRidg. Muralla, Manila Attn: Atty, Sabino Padilla. Jz...

Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter dated Septemher 23, 1964 regarding the proposed assessment for deficiency JAneome tax arainst our olfent, the Coleuwio del Hospicio de San Jose, for the years 1257 to 1961 iInelusive, in the amount of F&I, 108.00, and your letter dated November 16, 19866 regarding a similar assessment against the same taxpayer, for the year 1963 in the amount of P27,479.76, I have the honor to Iinferm you that , after a careful etudy of the facts and the law on the subfect, this Office has decided and hereby holds that in reporting net income, any deficit in the. exempt... dneome, of. saldd.. taxpayer, ineurred, in. its exempt. operations... a&..an educational and... charitable... dnustitution,, may be. deducted from ite taxable. income dn...the.. form...of... rente,...dividends..and interest...

Thie Office has found also that the Colegio del Hospiecto de San Jose was tneorporated on June 11, 1817 exclusively for educational and charitable purposes, such as the inetruction and education of boys and girls and the maintenance of resident etudentes and pupils; that the Hospicio provides a home for the aged and abandoned children; that it is financed and maintained by means of the tuition fees, donations, charitable contributions and income from its real and personal Properties such as rentals and dividends. Since said taxpayer ig a private educational institution, its net income, computed in the manner above described, ig subject to ineome tax at the rate of 10% provided for in Section 24 of the Tax Code.

2D

DKC.lSION - CTA CASK NO. 4224 - 8 - For the year 1963, the .._qmount of P4, 939. 40 o.f general expenses h as been disallowed, after investigati on.

Howeve~·, .<1.fter add.ing this amount t o the net income pe~· return of the taxpayet· of P8,916,31, the income tax due thereon, at the t·a te of 1 0.'¥, came to <.mly P1, 886. 00, which is less than the amount of P1, 962. 00 actually paid by the taxpayer .foz· tba t yeaz·.

In view of the .foregoing, this Office has .fint!lly dec ided not to push through our proposed llssessmen t foz· the yeaz·s 1957 to 1961 inclusive, and .for tbe year 1963 aJJd tbese cases, insofaz· as this Office is concerned, az·e hereby co11sidez·ed closed and term ina ted. Vet·y truly yotu·s, (SGD) AMBROSIO M. LINA Acting Deputy Commissione.t· of Intern .._ql Revenue Tbus, it is petitionez• ' s position tlult even if z·espoJJdent we.re to reverse the .._qbovestated ruling, sucb ~·evocation can only be applied pz·ospectively, pu.t·suant to Sectio11 327 (formerly Section ...138- A 110r:1 Sec ti 011 2 4 6) of the Tax Code which states: Sec.

327.

Non-retz·oactlvity t'f z·ulings. - An.v revocation, modification, Ol' reversal of an,v of the l'Ules and regulations promulgated in accot·d;;IJ1ce with the pl'eceding section or aJJY of the t·ulings o.t· circulars pt·omulgated by the Commissione.r sludl 110t be given retroactive application if the revo- cation, modiflcatio11, o.t· z·eve1·sal will be prejudicial to the taxpayers except in the .following cases: (a) whe1·e the tax- payet· delibe.rately misstates ot· omits material facts from his t·eturn or in any document required of him by the Bure<'W of

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO.

4224 - 9 - Intenud Revenue;

(b) whe.t·e tbe facts subsequently gathe.red by the Buz·eau of In te.rnal Revenue a.re materially diffe.t·en t fn:>m the facts on which tbe ruliJJg is based.: or (c) where the taxpayez· acted in bad faitb.

It is ave.tTed by respondent, however, that al tlumgh said z·uling on Decembe.t· 15, 1966 was issued in peti tione.r 's favor, BIR Ruling No.

638 dated December 29, 1959 a11d BIR Ruling dated Ma:rch 28, 1973 interpz·eted the proviso .in Section 27 of the Tax Code to mean that any deficit inctuTed by a tax-exempt entity WJde1· Sectio11 27 in its exempt ope1·ations, may not be deducted fz·om its taxable inoome in tl1e form of .t·en ts, dividends .:wd in te.t·es ts.

Furthe.rmore, in th e case of Hospl tal de San Juan de Dlos~ Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 1693, August 29, 1969, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled th .. 'i t the income of .. 'i tax-exempt entity from tl~xable oper ... 'i tions i.e. inte.t·ests and dividends ca1mot participate in the allocation of admlnist1·ative expenses lncu.tTed in tax-exempt operati ons. AccordiJJgly, the ruling of December 15, 1966 l1as bee11 coJJsidez·ed z·evoked by the afo.t·ementio11ed z·ulings and tbe above couz·t decision, he11ce, the said z·uling may no longer be applied in the i11sta11t case.

(Anne Jo:'

C, p • 7,

CT A

records) ?7

- 10 - BIR ruli11g No.

6..18 dated Deeembez· 29, 1959 is quoted below:

BIR RULING NO, 638

SERIES OF 1959

Decembez· 29, 1959 Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Co. Certified Public Accotmta11ts 490 San Luis, Manila

Gentlemen:

Hith :refez•eJH.:?e to youz· lette1· dated December 21, 1959,

I

ba ve the bon or to inform you as follows:

I11 our .t·uling dated August 5, 1859, we allowed, in computing the i11come tax payable by a corporation eng.;ged in bo th taxab.Ze and tax- exempt iJJdust.t•ies, the con soli da ticm of tbe net i11come of the t .;xpayer f:rom its taxable, pa.t·tly taxable, and fully exempt operaticms, From tbe total consolidated net income, the fully exempt income is deducted. On the remainder , the co.t·poz·a te tax is computed as if it is fully taxable . The amount of tax on the pa.rtly taxable income or the fully taxable income sluUl then consist o f that po.t·tion of the corporate tax thus ar.t•ived at which beaz·s the same .ratio to such tax as such income bears to the taxable consolidated net income.

In your instant query, howevez· you presented a situatio11 where the fully exempt llJJd tax .. ;ble ope.t·atioJ1S suffered losses.

You JJow posed the questio11 of whetber oz· not tbe losses de1·i ved f1·om the fully exempt aJJd taxable operations are deductible fz·om the net taxable i11come.

?8

- 11 - In :reply thereto,

I

have the honor to info:rm you tbat the oomputation allowed in ou.r letter of August 5, 195.9 stands.

But . tJu;~. __ l ..Qt$..f!l. __ ,_ (..te..ri...v..e_Q.. .... f....r.J:>.!!L _t.llC. .:fJJ.l.l.Y. ... _e.K.fl.ID.P.. t _QP.e..z· a .. t.Jo.Jl .. _c.a.rJ.l1.Q_t. __ lJ_e .. _de. d.u c...t ~ .d fzJ::>.m_ ... ..t.h.f.L ...... taxaolf;;L .. Jle_t .. _ .... ilJ.QQllJ~. .. However·, aJJY loss l n curr·ed i11 the paz·tly and fully taxable operations may be deducted from such taxable net i11come.

(Under I in inq

Ours)

Ver·y truly you1·s, (SGD) MELECIO R. D0!1IN(10 Commissionez- of IJJte.r1J...'11 Revenue Although it is tz·ue tba t tl1e abovequoted ruling of Dect..~mber 29, 1959 shoru the !'eve1·se of respondent ' s stand i11 bis ruling of Decembe1· 15, 1966, still the fo.rmer, having been issued much earlier·, could not have revoked the latter z·uling to peti tione1· .

As to the oth er BI R 1·uling date d March 28, 19 7 3 r·ei tera ti11g the ruling in BI R Ruling No .

638, sucb ca1mot; be acco1·ded m1y weight as it appe~·u·s to be a me1·e opini on r·e1Jde1·ed on a mere query to ano the1· taxpaye1· a11d lJesides beiJJlf UJJJwmber·ed tbere is 110 showing that 1 t l1as been widely circulated or published. The case of Hospital de San Juan de Dlos, Inc., vs. Co111mlssloner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 1693, August 29,1969 (AffLrmed i11 G.R. No. L - 31305, May 10, 1990), r·elied o11 by r ·espo11de1Jt, is 11ot in point.

There, the iss ue of whether the

DECISION -

CTA CASK NO. 4224 interest and dividend income of the taxpayer under Section 27(e) of the NIRC eghould share in the allocation of administrative expenses, was settled in the negative by the Supreme Court as follows:

The Court of Tax Appeals found that the interest and dividends received by the petitioner "were merely incidental ineome to petitdioner’s main activity, which te the operation of ite hospital and nureing schools [hence] the conelusion ig inevitable that petitioner’s activitiegs never went beyond that of a passive investor, which under existing Jurisprudence do not come within the purview of earrying on any ‘trade or business.°" (pp. 47-48, Rollo.) That factual finding is binding on this Court.

And, as the principle of allocating expenses 18. grounded_on the. premlae. that the... taxable. dncome was... derived. from carrying an. a trade of Dug inesba.. ag diletingulehed.....from... mere...vecelpt.. of dAnterest....and.... dividendse...from. one's investments,...the Court. of . Tax, Appeals correctly. ruled that. eaid income, should not... ehare. dit... the allocation. of administrative expenses. (p. 49, Rollo),

(Underlining Qurs)

It will be noted that in resolving the issue in the abovecited case, the provision dealing with the deductibility of business expenses under Section 30 of the Tax Code wae applied. Here in the case at bar the relevant provision is not Section 30 but Seetion 27 of the Tax Code. It: le apparent that the rulings and decision cited by respondent did not revoke the ruling to petitioner

DECISION -

CTJJ CASE NO. 4224 - 13 - of December 16, 1966 prior· to tl1e issuance of the deficiency income tax assessme11 t. Nevertheless, l'le do not find stdd asseBsment to be a .r·e troac ti ve re voo<~ ti on of the z·uli11g, hence Section 327 (formerly Section 338- A 11ow Section 246) of the N .. 'ltional

Internal

Revenue

Code

iB i11appli Cll bl e.

Well-establisbed is the n.lle that the government is never estopped f.t·om collecting taxes because of mistakes or e.rrors on the paz·t of its age11ts, i11 line with the doctrine la.id down in the case of Hllado vs.

Co.llector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil. 288 (1956), as follows: "With regan:f to tbe coJJtention tbat Gene.r·al Cit·cula.l' No .

V- 139

cannot be given retn_.,._'lctive effect beclHise tbat would affect and ob.llterate tbe vested right acquired by peti ticmet• under the previous circula1·, suffice 1 t to say that Genet·al Cit·cular No.

V- 12._1, lu'lving been issued on a wrong coJJStl·uotion of tb~ law, ca1mot give r .tse to a vested l'ight that can be invoked by a taxpaye1·. The reason is obvious : a vested z·igbt cannot spt•ing f1·om a wnmg inteJ·pret .. 'ltion. Tl1is is too clear to 1·equire elaboratio11. "It

Beems

too clear fo1· se.r·ious a1·gument th.rit an ._rtdmi1Jist.r·ative officer· ca.11 not change a law e11acted by Co11gress.

A

1·egulation tlJat is me.r·ely a11 inte1·pretation of the sta.tute whe11 oJJce dete.r·mined to have bee11 erroneous becomes Jwllity.

A11

e1·roneous COJJStt·uction of the law by tlJe T.r·easury Dep._r'frtmeJJ t o:t· the collector· of inte.rnal 1·evenue does not p:reclude o1· estop the gove1·nment f1·om collecting a tax wbicb is leg._q]Jy due " ~1 - 14 - As We have determined e .. u·lier, the deduction f.rom t .. 'ixable i11come of tbe losses iJJCU.tTed by peti tio11er in its exempt operation is not in accordance with law.

Since tl1e IJecembe1· 15, 1966 ruling issued to petitioner by l'espoJJden t ' s predecessor is a11 erroneous interp1·e tatio11 of tbe law and the:refore a m!lli ty which could not give .r·ise to a vested .r·ight that ca11 be invoked by petitione.r·, the government is 11ot pl"ecluded f.t·om collecting such tax which is legally due it. A11 adherence to this well - settle d p1·inciple in the Hllado case was empb .. 'isized not long ago by the Sup.t·eme Cou1·t in the case of

Zapata

llarlne

Servlces 1

Ltd., S.A. vs. Court of Tax Appeals et. al., G.R.

No.

80046, April 18, 1988, where the applicability of Section 827 011 non - n3tl·oactivity of 1·ulings w .. 'is in issue, when it ruled: Consi de.r·ing also tba t the const.ructio11 of a st .. <Jt'Jte by those .. 'idministel'iJJg it is not binding 011 thei.t· successors if the.t·eafte.r, as i11 this case, the latter become satisfied that a different co11stn.rctio11 should be given, presumably l.,ecause the f .. ::~cts subseque11 tly gathe1·ed by them a.re materially diffe1·ent f.t·om the facts on whicb the previous coJJstructioJJ is based, the .ruling of the then Commisslcmer Plana adverted to by petitioner may be .revoked by l'espoJJdeJJt Commissione.t· a11d the .t·evocation may be applied .r·etroactively without causing p.t·ejudice to petitioner since petitioner acqui.r·ec:f no vested .r·ight from said l'Uling as it arose f1·om a WI'ong iJJtei•pJ'etatloJJ of the law.

'.l ~2 - 15 - Assuming for the sake of argument tbat the.re is such a retroactive .revocation, petitioner has failed, however, to prove tbat injustice would result to it therefz·om. llJufe.I' Section .. 127, rulings or circulars pronwlgated by the Commissioner of

Internal

ReveJJue

would bave 110 retz·oactive applicaticm if to so apply tbem would be pz·ejudicial to taxpayer. In the present case, 110 such pz·ejudice was shown.

On the contrary, peti tionez· had p.1·ofi ted fn:>m the ntli11g of Decembe1· 15, 1966 for as z·evealed by the z·ecc.u·d, pet1t1c.mer did 11ot pay income taxes 011 its taxable inoome for the years 1978 and 1979 due to its l1aving deducted thez·ef.rom, tbe losses iJJcui-red in its exempt oper .. <t ti on, pursuant to the aforestated .ruling issued to it.

<'See

pp.

~.

Ci .~ 2 8 & .32 ,

BIR

record :;)

For all the fc>I·egoing,

We

hold pe ti ti one:r li .. 'ible fo.t· deficiency i11come tax for the year 1980. However, in ouz· opinion the addl tlonal z·equlz·emen t of 20% lntez·est in the sum of P128, 657.69 imposed by .1·espondent slwuld be elimi11ated because the pet1 tionez· .1·elled i11 good faith upo11 the ruli11g rendered by 110 less than a Dep11ty Comm1ssioJJez• of tl1e Buz·eau of Intez·11al Revenue.

[ABS-CBN

Broadcasting Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals

DECISION -

CTIJ CASE NO. 4224 - 16 - and the CoiiJtnissioner of Internal Revenue, 108 SCRA 142 (1981);

Tuason, Jr.

vs. Lingad,

58 SCRA

170 ( 1974); Connel Bros. Co. (Phil.) vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 10 SCRA 470 (1964)]. As 1·ega.rds the tax n~fwuf claimed by petl tlo11e1· .in the sum of P44, 805.25, 1·ep.resentlng 111come tax withheld at source for the yea1·s 1979 and 1980, no ev.idence whatsoeve1· was p1·esented 111 suppo1·t the1·eof, thus, 1 t has to be de11led. Accordingly, petitioner Hospiclo de San Jose, .is hereby ordered to pay to respondent Co•mlssioner of Internal Revenue the amount of P214, 429.48 as deficiency income tax for the year 1980. JrllJEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified as indicated in the above opinion of the Court.

Hi th costs.

CONjlTJJNTE

. ROAQCTIN 1ssocla te

Judge

.. /

DKCISION -

- 17 -

CBRTIFICATIO~

I

he.reby certify that this decision ~as reacJJed afte.t· due eonsul tatlon between tbe membe1·s of the Cot11·t of Tax Appeals .ln accordance ~1 tll Seetion 13, Article VIII of the Const.ltut.lon.