Court of Tax Appeals · Special Second Division

Deutsche Knowledge Services, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

CTA Case No. 8165 August 8, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Court of Tax Appeals

QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE

SERVICES PTE. LTD.,

Petitioner,

-versus-

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent,

CTA CASE NO. 8165

Members:

CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson

CASANOVA, and

MINDARO-GRULLA, fl.

Promulgated:

AUG 0 8 2013

t/'(1-> ~M

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

AMENDED DECISION

CASANOVA,].:

For resolution are the following: 1) petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated January 8, 2013)" filed through registered mail on January 30, 2013 and received by this Court on February 12, 2013;

2) petitioner's "Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion for Leave)" filed on AprilS, 2013; and 3) respondent's "Comment/Opposition (to Petitioner's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration)" filed on May 8, 2013.

Both Motions seek reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on January 8, 2013, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows~

AMENDED DECISIO

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED on the ground that it was prematurely filed.

SO ORDERED."

In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner interposes the following arguments:

"A.

THE REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

(RRCTA) ITSELF RECOGNIZES THE PARAMOUNT LEGAL

SIGNIFICANCE

OF THE

TWO-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE

PERIOD UNDER SECTION 229, TAX CODE. SECTION 229,

TAX CODE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER JUDICIAL

CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF TAXES EXCESSIVELY COLLECTED, SUCH AS EXCESS INPUT VAT UNDER SECTION llO(B), TAX CODE. B.

RESPONDENT IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THE

DEFENSE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. THE PRECEPTS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE

DEMAND THAT SUCH LEGAL PRINCIPLE SHOULD NOT

BE AVAILABLE TO BE INVOKED BY RESPONDENT IF

SHE HERSELF, BY HER ACTIONS, HAS MADE ITS COMPLIANCE IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONER. c.

PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF AICHP IS IN ORDER, ASSUMING

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THE SUPREME COURT

WILL DEEM AICHI TO BE A VALID JURISDICTIONAL

RULE."

Petitioner claims that unutilized input taxes are in the nature of excessively paid taxes which are subject to the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, and Rule 4, Section 3(a) of RRCTA, citing the cas~

of Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Atlas case)Z; and that the Aichi case does not provide sufficient legal basis to support the conclusion that petitioner's judicial claim for refund was dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. In Aichi case, the Supreme Court merely mentioned that "the 120-day period is crucial in filing an appeal with the CTA", but it does not categorically equates such finding with "lack of jurisdiction". Petitioner also avers that respondent actively participated in this case leading petitioner to believe that the case would be tried until its resolution. Respondent invoked this Court's jurisdiction throughout the course of the trial and even allowed petitioner to incur cost for the engagement of a certified public accountant to conduct a verification of its voluminous documents, only to say that this Court has no jurisdiction.

Thus, petitioner states that respondent is barred by estoppel to raise the defense of alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies, citing the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy3. Petitioner further avers that respondent had for the longest time led taxpayers to believe on the permissive nature of the 120-day period, as shown by respondent's rulings and issuances confirming the mandatory character of the two-year prescriptive period, such as, Revenue Regulations No. 7-95, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 42-99, RMC No. 42-03, RMC No. 29-09 and BIR Ruling No. DA-489-

03. Petitioner further argues that the taxpayers had witnessed how respondent's inaction on pending administrative claims for refund has become institutionalized and, made taxpayers seek automatic refuge from this Court to recover unduly collected taxes. Also, there is nothing in the deliberations4 made by the legislators that categorically point to the supposed jurisdictional effects of the proposed 120-day period. Neither did the deliberations intimate that the two-year prescriptive period had been dispensed with. Petitioner contends that, in view of the issuances of respondent, her actions throughout the course of the trial, her failure to raise the defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies in her Answer, coupled with the existing practice of long-delayed processing of claims for refund, respondent has made it impossible for petitioner and other taxpayers to effectively and genuinely comply with the 120-day period and, it would be inequitable to pass the burden of the consequences of respondent's action to petitioner.~

Finally, petitioner contends that the Aichi case was promulgated on October 6, 2010 and became final and executory only on December 6, 2010, while petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on September 30, 2010. This Court already acquired jurisdiction at the time the instant petition was filed and the same was not lost when the Aichi case became final and executory. Even if compliance with the 30- day or the 120-day period under the Aichi case interpretation will be considered mandatory, such ruling should not be made to apply to petitioner considering the prevailing jurisprudence and administrative issuances at the time of the filing of its judicial claim for refund. Hence, the ruling in the Aichi case should be applied prospectively on the basis of equity and fairness. On the other hand, respondent reiterates and adopts the factual findings and legal conclusions of all the members of this Court in the Decision dated January 8, 2013, as well as her legal arguments in her Memorandum dated August 22, 2012, as part of her Comment/Opposition to petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, per Manifestation and Motion dated March 15, 2013. In addition, respondent avers that the instant Motion for Reconsideration is clearly a pro forma motion because the arguments raised therein are mere repetition and reiteration of the arguments already passed and ruled upon by this Court.

In its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion for Leave), petitioner alleges that in the consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation/ Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/ Phi/ex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue5, the Supreme Court En Bane declared that a judicial claim for refund of input value-added tax (VAT) filed with this Court before the lapse of the 120-day period under Section 112 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is considered to have been timely made, if such filing occurred after the issuance of the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated December 10, 2003 but before the adoption of the Aichi doctrine on October 6, 2010, where the Supreme Court held that the 120-30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional.

According to petitioner, the Supreme Court En Bane explained in the above-mentioned San Roque case that the BIR Ruling No. DA-489- 03 constitutes a general interpretative rule which may be relied upon by taxpayers from the time the rule was issued up to its reversal by respondent and that equitable estoppel was deemed to have set in. Also the Supreme Court considered the issuance of a general interpretativ~

ruling by respondent as an exception to the rule that the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional and that taxpayers should not be prejudiced by an erroneous interpretation by respondent on a difficult question of law, thus, recognizing the need to prospectively apply the ruling in the Aichi case. Petitioner posits that it filed its administrative claim for refund of input VAT with respondent on September 7, 2010, while its judicial claim for refund was filed on September 30, 2010, after the issuance of the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 dated December 10, 2003 but before the promulgation of the Aichi case on October 6, 2010. Consequently, the Aichi case should not be applied in this case and the assailed Decision should be reversed considering that petitioner's judicial claim for refund had been timely filed. Respondent counters that this Court cannot apply the principle of equitable estoppel against the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) since the said BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued not by the CIR, but by then Deputy Commissioner Jose Mario C. Bufiag of the Legal and Inspection Group of BIR, in violation to the express provision of Sections 4 and 7 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, in relation to Section 112(D) of the same Code. Hence, it cannot give rise to a vested right in favor of petitioner since there is no vested right with respect to a wrong construction of the law by administrative officials, and such wrong interpretation does not place the government in estoppel to correct or overrule the same.

Likewise, respondent argues that this Court cannot apply the ruling in the said consolidated cases since petitioner failed to aver /invoke in its pleadings (i.e. Petition for Review and Motion for Reconsideration) that it had relied on the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 as the legal basis of its claim. Hence, the exception provided by the Supreme Court in the said consolidated cases, is not applicable in the instant case and that, petitioner cannot raise that issue for the first time on appeal. Respondent further argues that the Petition for Review filed by petitioner before the lapse of the 120-day period, accorded to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to decide on its claim for input VAT refund, is not within the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction. Lastly, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised by respondent at any stage of the proceedings. After a careful re-evaluation of the foregoing arguments presented, We find petitioner's arguments meritorious.~

In the recent consolidated cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation/ Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/ Phi/ex Mining Corporation vs.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue (San Roque case),6 the Supreme Court En Bane held as follows: "b. G.R. No. 196113- Taganito Mining Corporation

v. CIR Like San Roque, Taganito also filed its petition for review with the CTA without waiting for the 120-day period to lapse. Also, like San Roque, Taganito filed its judicial claim before the promulgation of the Atlas doctrine. xxx. Taganito is similarly situated as San Roque - both cannot claim being misled, misguided, or confused by the Atlas doctrine.

However, Taganito can invoke BIR Ruling No. DA-489- 03 dated 10 December 2003, which expressly ruled that the 'taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review.' Taganito filed its judicial claim after the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489- 03 but before the adoption of the Aichi doctrine. Thus, as will be explained later, Taganito is deemed to have filed its judicial claim with the CTA on time. XXX XXX XXX xxx BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 does provide a valid claim for equitable estoppel under Section 246 of the Tax Code. BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 expressly states that the 'taxpayer- claimant need not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief with the CTA by way of Petition for Review.' xxx There is no dispute that the 120-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that the CT A does not acquire jurisdiction over a judicial claim that is filed before the expiration of the 120-day period. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if the Commissioner, through a specific ruling, misleads a particular taxpayer to prematurely file a judicial claim with the CT A. Such specific ruling is applicable only to such tfr

AM ENDED DEC ISION

particular taxpayer. The second exception is where the Commissioner, through a general interpretative rule issued under Section 4 of the Tax Code, misleads all taxpayers into filing prematurely judicial claims with the CT A. In these cases, the Commissioner cannot be allowed to later on question the CTA's assumption of jurisdiction over such claim since equitable estoppel has set in as expressly authorized under Section 246 of the Tax Code. XXX XXX XXX Since the Commissioner has exclusive and original jurisdiction to interpret tax laws, taxpayers acting in good faith should not be made to suffer for adhering to general interpretative rules of the Commissioner interpreting tax laws, should such interpretation later turn out to be erroneous and be reversed by the Commissioner or this Court.

Indeed, Section 246 of the Tax Code expressly provides that a reversal of a BIR regulation or ruling cannot adversely prejudice a taxpayer who in good faith relied on the BIR regulation or ruling prior to its reversal. xxx XXX XXX XXX Thus, a general interpretative rule issued by the Commissioner may be relied upon by taxpayers from the time the rule is issued up to its reversal by the Commissioner or this Court. Section 246 is not limited to a reversal only by the Commissioner because this Section expressly states, 'Any revocation, modification or reversal' without specifying who made the revocation, modification or reversal. Hence, a reversal by this Court is covered under Section 246. Taxpayers should not be prejudiced by an erroneous interpretation by the Commissioner, particularly on a difficult question of law. The abandonment of the Atlas doctrine by Mirant and Aichi is proof that the reckoning of the prescriptive periods for input VAT tax refund or credit is a difficult question of law. The abandonment of the Atlas doctrine did not result in Atlas, or other taxpayers similarly situated, being made to return the tax refund or credit they received or could have received under Atlas prior to its abandonment. This Court is applying Mirant and Aichi prospectively. Absent fraud, bad faith or misrepresentation, the reversal by this Court of a general interpretative rule issued by th~

Commissioner, like the reversal of a specific BIR ruling under Section 246, should also apply prospectively. xxx XXX XXX XXX BIR

Ruling

No.

DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule because it was a response to a query made, not by a particular taxpayer, but by a government agency tasked with processing tax refunds and credits, that is, the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Drawback Center of the Department of Finance. This government agency is also the addressee, or the entity responded to, in BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, while this government agency mentions in its query to the Commissioner the administrative claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., the agency was in fact asking the Commissioner what to do in cases like the tax claim of Lazi Bay Resources Development, Inc., where the taxpayer did not wait for the lapse of the 120-day period. Clearly, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 is a general interpretative rule. Thus, all taxpayers can rely on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on 10 December 2003 up to its reversal by this Court in Aichi on 6 October 2010, where this Court held that the 120+30 day periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. However, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 cannot be given retroactive effect for four reasons: first, it is admittedly an erroneous interpretation of the law; second, prior to its issuance, the BIR held that the 120-day period was mandatory and jurisdictional, which is the correct interpretation of the law; third, prior to its issuance, no taxpayer can claim that it was misled by the BIR into filing a judicial claim prematurely; and fourth, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is strictly construed against the taxpayer. XXX XXX XXX Taganito, however, filed its judicial claim with the CTA on 14 February 2007, after the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003. Truly, Taganito can claim that in filing its judicial claim prematurely without waiting for the 120-day period to expire, it was misled by BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Thus, Taganito can claim the benefit of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03, which shields the filing ~

AMENDED DEC ISION

of its judicial claim from the vice of prematurity." (Emphases supplied) Based from the aforementioned pronouncement of the Supreme Court En Bane, all taxpayers can rely on the BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003, up to its reversal in the Aichi case on October 6, 2010. It should be recalled that in the present claim, petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund on September 7, 20107, which presumably was also the date when petitioner submitted its supporting documents, while its Petition for Review was filed on September 30, 2010. Clearly, pursuant to Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the Petition for Review was prematurely filed because the 120-day period for the CIR to decide on the claim for refund had yet to lapse on January 5, 2011. However, pursuant to the above-quoted Supreme Court En Bane decision, petitioner's judicial claim filed on September 30, 2010 must be given due course on the basis of BIR Ruling No. DA 489-03, which, as decreed by the Supreme Court, is a general interpretative rule that may be relied upon from the time of its issuance on December 10, 2003, up to its reversal by Aichi case on October 6, 2010. Hence, the Petition for Review shall be considered as timely filed. This Court will now proceed to the issue of whether or not petitioner is entitled to its claim for VAT refund or issuance of tax credit certificate in the amount ofP73,624,249.76. Petitioner cites as legal bases for its claim, Sections 110(B) and 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which are all quoted below: "SEC. 110. Tax Credits.- (B) Excess Output or Input Tax. - If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT -registered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters. Provided, however, that any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT -registered person may at his option be refunde9e.,_

7 Par. 3, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Admitted Facts, Docket, p. 128; Exhibit "C".

or credited against other internal revenue taxes, subject to the provisions of Section 112.' 'SEC. 112. Refunds or Tax Credits of Input Tax.- (A) Zero-Rated or Effectively Zero-Rated Sales. - Any VAT -registered person, whose sales are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made, apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund of creditable input tax due or paid attributable to such sales, except transitional input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against output tax: Provided, however, That in the case of zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(¹), (²) and (b) and Section 108(B)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds thereof had been duly accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP): Provided, further, That where the taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sale and also in taxable or exempt sale of goods of properties or services, and the amount of creditable input tax due or paid cannot be directly and entirely attributed to any one of the transactions, it shall be allocated proportionately on the basis of the volume of sales: Provided, finally, That for a person making sales that are zero-rated under Section 108(B)(6), the input taxes shall be allocated ratably between his zero-rated and non-zero-rated sales." Pursuant to Section 112(A), in order to be entitled to a refund or tax credit of unutilized input VAT, attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales, the following requisites must be complied with:

there must be zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 2.

that input taxes were incurred or paid; 3.

that such input taxes are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales; 4.

that the input taxes were not applied against any output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters; and 5.

that the claim for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period.

Having resolved the timeliness of the administrative and judicial claims for the third and fourth quarters of 2008, this Court shall now~

Page I I of23 proceed to determine petitioner's compliance with the other requisites for refund of excess input VAT, attributable to zero-rated sales. Anent the first requisite, petitioner's Quarterly VAT Returns for the two quarters covered by the instant claim showed that it had the following zero-rated sales/receipts: Period Zero-Rated Exhibit Quarter Covered Sales/Receipts D ll 3rd July-Sept 2008 p 1,047,333,457.60 D-l '.J 4th Oct-Dec 2008 395,416,881.53 Total p 1,442,750,339.13 Petitioner submits that its sales of services to its affiliates abroad are VAT zero-rated pursuant to Section 108(B) (2) of the NIRC of 1997, to wit:

"SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties.- XXX XXX XXX (B) Transactions Subject to Zero Percent (0%) Rate.- The following services performed in the Philippines by VAT -registered persons shall be subject to zero percent (0%) rate:

(1) Processing, manufacturing or repacking goods for other persons doing business outside the Philippines which goods are subsequently exported, where the services are paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); (2) Services other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraph rendered to a person engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines or to a nonresident person not engaged in business who is outside the Philippines when the services are performed, the consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and accounted for in accordance with the rules~ 8 Exhibit "D", Line 17. 9 Exhibit "D-1 ", Line 17.

AMENDED DECISIO

and regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); xxx'' In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Burmeister and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc., 1Dthe Supreme Court held that in order for the supply of services to be VAT zero-rated under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended [then Section 102(b )(2) of the NIRC of 1977, as amended], the following requisites must be met:

1) the services by a VAT registered person must be other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods; 2) payment for such services must be in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations; and, 3) the recipient of such services is doing business outside the Philippines.

Corollary to the second requisite, Sections 113(A)(2), (8)(1), (2)(c) and (³) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, as implemented by Sections 4.113-1(A)(2), 8(1) and (2)(c) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 16-05 provides that a VAT taxpayer, like petitioner, shall for every lease of goods or properties and for every sale, barter or exchange of services, issue a VAT official receipt which must contain the following information:

"SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-Registered Persons.- (A) Invoicing Requirements. - A VAT-registered person shall issue:

XXX XXX XXX

(2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale. barter or exchange of services.

(B) Information Contained in the VAT Invoice or VAT Official Receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in the VAT invoice or VAT official receipt:~

10 G.R. No. 153205, January 22, 2007.

(1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his Taxpayer's Identification Number (TIN);

(2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the value-added tax: Provided, that: XXX XXX XXX (c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (Oo/o) value- added tax, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt; XXX XXX XXX

(3) The date of transaction, quantity, unit cost and description of the goods or properties or nature of the service; and xxx" (Underlining supplied.) "SEC. 4.113-1.

Invoicing Requirements. - (A) A VAT-registered person shall issue:- XXX XXX XXX

(2) A VAT official receipt for every lease of goods or properties, and for every sale, barter or exchange of services.

Only VAT -registered persons are required to print their TIN followed by the word 'VAT' in their invoice or official receipts. Said documents shall be considered as a 'VAT Invoice' or VAT official receipt. All purchases covered by invoices/receipts other than VAT Invoice/VAT Official Receipt shall not give rise to any input tax. VAT invoice/official receipt shall be prepared at least in duplicate, the original to be given to the buyer and the duplicate to be retained by the seller as part of his accounting records.

(B) Information contained in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt. - The following information shall be indicated in VAT invoice or VAT official receipt~

AMENDED DEC ISION

(1) A statement that the seller is a VAT-registered person, followed by his TIN;

(2) The total amount which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller with the indication that such amount includes the VAT; Provided, That: XXX XXX XXX

(c) If the sale is subject to zero percent (0%) VAT, the term 'zero-rated sale' shall be written or printed prominently on the invoice or receipt;" (Underlining supplied.)

Pursuant to the foregoing provisiOns, the foreign currency remittances referred by Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, must, likewise, be supported by VAT zero-rated official receipts.

Records show that petitioner satisfactorily complied with the first requisite for VAT zero-rating of sales of services. Petitioner is duly registered with the BIR as a VAT taxpayer11 and the services it performs in the Philippines, through its regional operating headquarters (ROHQ), like financial accounting market and instrument control valuation, information systems integrity and application development and support services12 are not the same category as "processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods."

For services rendered for the third and fourth quarters of 2008, petitioner received foreign currency payments, which were accounted for in accordance with the BSP rules and regulations, as evidenced by sales invoices13 and official receipts14 issued by petitioner to its alleged non-resident foreign clients, fund transfer credit advice, and bank statements15.

For the said taxable quarters, petitioner rendered services to the following entities 16~ 11 Par. 5, JSFI, Admitted Facts, Docket, p. 129; Exhibit "8". 12 Notes to Financial Statements, No. 3 Summary of Signi ficant Accounting Policies, under Revenue Recognition, Exhibit "J250 I". 13 Exhibits "J I" to" J 193". 14 Exhibits "J248" to "1322". 15 Exhibits "J 194" to "1247". 16 Exhibit "L", Annex E.

AME OED DECISION

COMPANY NAME

1. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Inlandsbank

2. Deutsche Bank, Sociedad An6nima Espaiiola

3. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Wien

4. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Asia Pacific Head Office

5. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Singapur

6. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Bangkok

7. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Mumbai

8. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Hongkong

9. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Jakarta

10. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Seoul

11. Deutsche Asset Management (Asia) Limited

12. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale New York

13. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale London

14. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Prag

15. Deutsche Bank Luxembourg S.A.

16. Deutsche Securities Inc.

17. Deutsche Bank (China) Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch

18. Deutsche Bank (China) Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Branch

19. Deutsche Bank (China) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Branch

20. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Manila (full bank-licence)

21. DWS Holding & Service GmbH

22. Deutsche Bank Real Estate (Japan) Y.K.

23. Deutsche Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd.

24. PT Deutsche Securities Indonesia

25. Deutsche Group Services Pty Limited

26. Deutsche Bank PBC Spolka Akcyjna

27. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

28. DB Finance Inc.

29. DB Trust Company Limited Japan LOCATION Frankfurt Spain Austria Singapore - APHO Singapore Bangkok Mumbai Hong Kong Jakarta Korea Singapore- AMBAC New York London Czech Republic Luxembourg Tokyo China China China Manila Frankfurt Japan Singapore- DAPH Indonesia Sydney Poland New York Japan Japan To prove that its clients are non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines, petitioner presented the following documents:

1. SEC Certifications of Non-Registration of Corporation /Partnership 17;

2. Authenticated Articles of Association of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaftls;

3. Authenticated License and Change Location issued by the Banking Department of the State of New York to Deutsche Bank AG, New York Branch19· '-IP-

17 Exhibits "E-1 " to "E-1 2"; "E-14" to "E-16" and "E-18" to "E-30".

18 Exhibit "F".

19 Exhibit "F-1 ".

4. Authenticated Certification from the Registrar of Companies for England and Waleszo;

5. Authenticated Certificate of Registration of a Foreign Company of Deutsche Group Services Pty. Limited21;

6. Authenticated certified copy of all historical registered matters pertaining to Deutsche Securities Inc. based in 11-1, Sanno Park Tower, Nagatacho 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyozz;

7. Authenticated Certificate of Registration of Oversea Company of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft from the Registrar of Companies Hong Kong23;

8. Authenticated Business Registration of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Jakarta from the Menteri Keuangan, Indonesia24;

9. Authenticated Certificate of Registration of Foreign Company of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft issued by the Acting Registrar of Companies, Singaporezs;

10. Authenticated Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name of Deutsche Asset Management (Asia) Limited26;

11. Authenticated Certification from Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Asia Pacific Head Office27;

12. IntraGroup Service Agreements2B; and,

13. Deutsche Bank List of Shareholdings 200829. However, this Court finds that each of the aforesaid documents, standing alone, is an inadequate proof that petitioner's client is a non- resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines. While the SEC Certificates of Non-Registration show that the named entities therein are not registered corporations/partnerships in the Philippines, the same do not prove that such entities are non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines. Likewise, the IntraGroup Service Agreements only show the names of petitioner's customers to whom it renders services but the same do not establish that such customers are non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines. Also, the Articles of Association and Certificates of Registration of Foreign Company /Incorporation only prove that the named entities therein were incorporated/ organized abroad but do not establish that such entities are not doing business in the Philippines.~

20 Exhibit "F-2".

21 Exhibit "F-4".

22 Exhibit "F-5".

23 Exhibit "F-6".

24 Exhibit "F-7".

25 Exhibit "F-8".

26 Exhibit "F-9".

27 Exhibit "F-1 0".

28 Exhibits "G-1 " to "G- 12", "G-1 4" to "G-16", "G-18" to "G-23", "G-25" to "G-29".

29 Exhibit "H".

To be considered as non-resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported, at the very least, by both SEC certificate of non-registration of corporation/partnership and certificate/articles of foreign incorporation/association. Thus, only the following clients of petitioner shall be considered as non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines:

COMPANY NAME

LOCATION

1. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Inlandsbank Frankfurt

2. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Asia Pacific Head Singapore - Office APHO

3. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Singapur Singapore

4. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Hongkong Hong Kong

5. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale Jakarta Jakarta

6. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Filiale New York New York

7. Deutsche Securities Inc. Tokyo

8. Deutsche Group Services Pty Limited Sydney Accordingly, petitioner's sales of services to the aforementioned entities for the third and fourth quarters of 2008 in the amount of P14,991,955.66 Euro, with the peso equivalent of P973,743,933.6530, qualify for VAT zero-rating under Section 108(8)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

The rest of petitioner's declared zero-rated sales in the amount of P469,006,405.48 (P1,442,750,339.13 less P973,743,933.65) shall be denied VAT zero-rating, for petitioner's failure to prove that the entities to whom it rendered services are non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines. Petitioner alleges that the entire amount of P73,624,249.76, reflected in its Quarterly VAT Returns for the third and fourth quarters of 2008 as input VAT from current purchase transactions, is attributable to its zero-rated sales of services for the said quarters. Below is the breakdown of the input tax of P73,624,249.76: 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Year 2008 Exhibit D Exhibit D-1 Total Allowable Input Tax from Current Transactions Purchases of Capital Goods not exceeding P 1 Million p 138,623.80 p 72,266.79 p 210,890.59 Purchases of Capital Goods exceeding P 1 Million 164,952.46 I ,090,744.84 1,255,697.30 30 See details per Annex A of this Amended Decision.

AMENDED DEC ISION

Domestic Purchases of Goods other than Capital Goods Domestic Purchase of Services Services rendered by non- residents Total Current Input Tax 638,671.91 21 ,698,352.59 1,027,359.29 p 23,667,960.05 1,016,437.52 1,655,109.43 47,284,331.08 68,982,683.67 492,509.48 1,5 19,868.77 p 49,956,289.71 p 73,624,249.76 In support of the input VAT of P73,624,249.76, petitioner presented various suppliers' invoices and official receipts31. However, a scrutiny of these documents shows that out of the total input VAT claim of P73,624,249.76, only the amount of P12,890,726.9832 is duly substantiated by valid VAT invoices or official receipts, in accordance with Sections 110(A) and 113(A) and (B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and as implemented by Sections 4.110-8 and 4.113-1 of the Revenue Regulations No.16-2005, as amended. It must be noted that part of the total input VAT claim of P73,624,249.76, is the amount of P1,255,697.30, representing input VAT on purchases of capital goods exceeding P1 Million. Pursuant to Section 110(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, input VAT claim on capital goods purchases attributable to zero-rated sales may be claimed either in full during the month of acquisition, or spread over a period of time, depending on the aggregate acquisition cost of the capital goods in the calendar month. If the aggregate acquisition cost exceeds P1 Million, the claim for input tax should be spread over 60 months or the estimated useful life of the capital goods, whichever is shorter. On the other hand, if aggregate acquisition cost does not exceed P1 Million, the total input taxes shall be allowed as credit/refund in the month of acquisition.

Thus, while petitioner was able to substantiate the amount of P598,791.2633, out of the total claimed input VAT of P1,255,697.30 on capital goods purchases exceeding P1 Million, only the amortization34 for the third and fourth quarters of 2008 in the amount of P38,187.23 may be claimed by petitioner as valid input tax credits for the same taxable quarters, as computed below:~ 31 Exhibits "1323" to "J2477". 32 See details per Annex 8 of this Amended Decision. 33 Included in the total substantiated input VAT ofP12,890,726.98. 34 Based on estimated useful life of 60 months since the Court cannot ascertain the estimated useful life used by petitioner in depreciating the said capital goods.

Third Quarter - Purchases of capital goods exceeding Pl Million 1333 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 087253 1335 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088231 1337 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088463 1338 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088475 1339 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088476 1340 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088535 1341 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088960 1344 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089083 1345 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089084 1348 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089242 1349 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089243 1350 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089248 1351 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089250 1352 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089287 1355 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089492 1357 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089672 1358 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089679 1360 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089689 1362 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089841 1363 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089939 1367 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090192 1368 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090202 1369 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090223 1371 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090271 35 Exhibit "J2478".

Input Tax Reported per Monthly VAT Amortization Declaration35 (for 6 for July 2008 Months) p 642.86 p 64.29 482.14 48.21 10,402.50 1,040.25 2,155.50 215.55 760.71 76.07 8,605.50 860.55 428.57 42.86 535.71 53.57 10,402.50 1,040.25 1,125.86 112.59 698.36 69.84 1,264.29 126.43 1,264.29 126.43 2,678.57 267.86 439.29 43.93 375.00 37.50 21 ,864.86 2,186.49 71 ,060.79 7,106.08 1,339.29 133.93 1,659.64 165.96 2,678.57 267.86 11 ,539.29 1,153.93 1,448.36 144.84 8,3 14.29 831.43 «!it--

J373 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. J377 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. J378 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090376 090537 090538 3rd quarter - Purchases of capital goods exceeding P JM Fourth Quarter- Purchases of capital goods exceeding Pl Million J1471 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 085858 11472 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 086538 J1473 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 086824 J1474 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 087205 J1476 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 088477 J1478 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089132 11482 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089832 J1483 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 089853 J1484 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090378 J1485 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090441 J1486 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090535 J1487 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090618 J1488 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090634 J1489 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 090970 11495 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 091900 J1496 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 091902 J1497 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 091936 11501 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 092024 11502 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 092240 36 Exhibit "J2484".

2,078.57 207.86 439.29 43.93 267.86 26.79 p 164,952.46 p 16,495.28 Input Tax Reported per Monthly VAT Declaration36 Amortization for October (for 3 2008 months) p 2,680.50 p 134.03 2,357.14 117.86 25,608.86 1,280.44 698.36 34.92 2,080.50 104.03 2,369.79 118.49 7,071.43 353.57 326,250.00 16,3 12.50 4,157.14 207.86 1,448.36 72.42 439.29 21.96 10,264.29 513.21 3,857.14 192.86 750.00 37.50 2,078.57 103.93 2,678.57 133.93 18,278.57 913.93 750.00 37.50 1,178.57 58.93

11503 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 11506 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 11509 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 11511 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 11512 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 11513 ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC. 092241 092310 092725 092806 093328 094274 4th quarter- Purchases of capital goods exceeding P1M Total 1,178.57 58.93 1,044.64 52.23 15,041.57 752.08 439.29 21.96 698.36 34.92 439.29 21.96 p 433,838.80 p 21,691.95 p 598,791.26 p 38,187.23 Consequently, the unamortized input VAT of P560,604.03 (P598,791.26 less P38,187.23), pertaining to capital goods purchases exceeding Pl Million, shall be deducted from the duly substantiated input VAT of Pl2,890,726.98. Thus, only the remaining amount of P12,330,122.95, represents petitioner's valid input VAT for the third and fourth quarters of 2008. After applying petitioner's valid input VAT of P12,330,122.95 against its reported output VAT liability of P1,526,084.5637 for the subject period of claim, there remains an excess input VAT of P10,804,038.39, which can be attributed to the entire zero-rated sales/receipts declared by petitioner in the amount of P1,442,750,339.13. Therefore, only the input VAT of P7,291,883.12 is attributable to the valid zero-rated sales/receipts of P973,743,933.65, as computed below:

Valid Input VAT p 12,330,122.95 Less: Output VAT 1,526,084.56 Valid Excess Input VAT p 10,804,038.39 Valid Zero-Rated Sales/Receipts p 973,743,933.65 Divided by Total Reported Zero-Rated Sales/Receipts 1,442,750,339.13 Multiplied by Valid Excess Input VAT X 10,804,038.39 Excess Input VAT attributable to the Valid Zero- Rated Sales/Receipts p 7,291,883.12

37 Exhibit " D-1 ", line 15B.

Although the claimed input VAT was carried-over by petitioner in its succeeding Quarterly VAT Returns38, the same remained unutilized until it was deducted as "Any VAT Refund/TCC Claimed"39 in its Quarterly VAT Return for the third quarter of 2010. Thus, the excess input VAT of P281,180,434.454D, as of the end of the third quarter of 2010, which was to be carried-over to the succeeding fourth quarter of 2010, is no longer included in the subject claim. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the instant Petition for Review be granted but in the reduced amount of P7,291,883.12. Consequently, this Court deems it no longer necessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties in this case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (With Motion for Leave) are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 8, 2013, dismissing the instant Petition for Review on the ground that it was prematurely filed, is RECALLED and SET ASIDE and the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ORDERED to REFUND or to ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE to petitioner in the reduced amount of P7,291,883.12, representing unutilized input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the period covering third (3rd) and fourth (4th) quarters of calendar year 2008.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

~~t;c.ar~C⁴ »r · JtJANrro C. CASTANEDA~ fR. Associate Justice ~ N.M~~ 6'~ CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice 38 Exhibits "D-2" to "D-8". 39 Exhibit "D-8", line 230. 40 Exhibit "D-8", line 29. CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice

AME OED DECISIO

J3 14

ANN EX B

ELECTRONIC SECURITYSYSTEMS CO

J666 ePLDTINC.

J668 ePLDT INC.

J669 ePLDT INC.

J669 ePLDTINC.

1669 ePLDT INC.

J669 ePLDT INC.

J669 ePLDTINC.

J670 ePLDT INC.

1671 ePLDT INC.

J672 ePLDT INC.

J673 ePLDT INC.

Page 2 of 22

ANNEX B

Reference Input Tax 0150 1,350.00 0151 3,974.40 0153 6,348.00 0154 496.80 0156 3,105.00 0158 2,649.60 0159 5,796.00 0160 7,245.00 0161 3,353.40 0162 5,796.00 0163 2,318.40 7710005416 82,800.00 7661 45,600.00 7747 45,600.00 7573 1,358.21 7597 1,472.75 7598 1,161.84 7602 1,374.57 7635 409.10 0001623 264,000.00 0001942 13,476.84 0001943 235.71 0001944 239.40 0001945 239.40 0001946 239.40 0001947 239.40 0001948 264,000.00 0001949 110,931.72 0002289 13,476.84 0002290 235.71 0002291 239.40 0002292 239.40 0002293 239.40 0002294 239.40 76596 9,054.38 76714 14,494.13 76594 1,140.37 76716 95.42 76907 640.41 76908 9,054.38 76715 14,494.11 77198 9,054.38 77197 14,494.13 104284 520.98 104285 400.77 104286 157.87 104287 552.99 104288 206.59 108103 1,193.66 108104 1,193.66 108105 1,193.66 108112 1,193.66 108113 1,193.66 ,_

Reference Input Tax 5000380 204.00 8004252 204.00 6029440 204.00 8004299 204.00 1007034 204.00 6029441 204.00 8004282 204.00 1470 94,089.46 1892 214.29 228858 160.18 232697 160.18 232704 19,387.20 227922 19,387.20 232702 160.18 236041 160.18 228599 160.18 235811 160.18 235515 320.36 232109 160.18 228598 160.18 228854 1,334.51 232110 1,782.58 236455 2,141.74 232418 1,737.97 232108 213.75 236157 213.75 234811 800.89 236042 160.18 232696 160.18 228595 160.18 236156 160.18 236040 160.18 227923 160.18 227920 160.18 236158 160.18 232699 160.18 230422 160.18 231828 160.18 232703 18,000.00 228291 18,000.00 236161 160.1 8 236162 160.18 228856 160.18 228857 320.36 229366 341.02 231827 160.18 232698 160.18 232695 160.18 228597 160.18 227921 106.61 235809 106.61 230425 75.06 230423 175.68

DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. l TO. Substantiated Input VAT Claim (Per this Court's findings) for the quarters ending September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008 Exhibit Name of Supplier Reference Third Quarter Jl004 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 235518 11005 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 230424 11006 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 236160 11007 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 226654 11008 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 230309 11009 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 236159 11010 INNOVE COMMUNTCA TIONS, INC. 227919 Jl011 INNOVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 230420 11019 KFORCE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INC. 02836 Jl020

KSA REALTY CORPORATION

KSA08-13 11021

KSA REALTY CORPORATION

RB3948

362064 Jl374

QUARTZ BUSINESS PRODUCTS CORP

362828 J1391 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 0175 11391 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 0176 11392 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 0177 Page 8 of 22

ANNEX B

Input Tax 160.18 175.68 160.18 7,944.21 7,530.52 160.18 160.18 160.18 12,039.60 25,142.24 120,4 15.10 120,415.10 361,245.30 361,245.30 173,199.79 342,815.43 111,529.44 440,314.38 3,008.25 3,252.56 1,420.43 5,836.88 647.61 (167.13) 2,678.57 20,571.43 16,928.57 1,020.05 276.27 3,143.22 262.50 10,175.67 9,581.94 9,263.19 9,263.19 1,128.00 1,128.00 I ,679.46 6,163.93 2,253.21 538.93 353.04 1,383.21 141 .96 1,383.21 1,030.18 1,383.21 127.50 2,712.86 648.21 74,382.00 81 ,774.00 9,000.00

DEUTSCHE KNOWlEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. Substantiated Input VAT Claim (Per this Court's findings) for the quarters ending September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008 Exhibit Name of Supplier Third Quarter J1393 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 11394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. Jl395 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. J1396 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. Jl396 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. J1395 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. J1396 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. J1397 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 11395 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. J1403

SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES INC

Jl404 SGV &CO.

J1406 SGV &CO.

Jl407 SGV & CO.

J1413 SGV &CO.

11754

ELECTRONIC SECURITYSYSTEMS CO

11755

ELECTRONIC SECURITYSYSTEMS CO

11756 ePLDTINC.

11757 ePLDT INC.

11758 ePLDT INC.

Page 10 of 22

ANNEX B

Reference Input Tax 092805 439.29 094879 698.36 095573 1,523.57 095786 11,357.14 096535 803 .57 097021 l, 178.57 103010 15,845.09 106615 15,845.09 111704 15,845.09 114451 15,845.09 7788 1,092.87 7897 800.19 7952 994.20 7984 1,049.67 8103 1,444.62 8111 2,099.34 0164 1,076.40 0165 4,140.00 0166 3,353.40 0167 1,080.00 0168 3,105.00 0169 3,643.20 0170 952.20 0172 2,070.00 0174 1,656.00 0175 2,235.60 0176 4,554.00 0177 993.60 0178 1,159.20 0179 952.20 0180 3,353.40 0181 7,455.60 0182 2,070.00 0183 1,473.09 0184 910.80 0185 3,864.00 0188 12,032.40 0189 2,401 .20 0190 455.40 230 177,000.00 7710005773 2,855,514.45 7594 33,000.00 7763 45,600.00 7848 45,600.00 7969 45,600.00 8049 45,600.00 7664 490.92 7718 392.73 7772 360.01 7799 114.55 0002295 264,000.00 0002296 110,931.72 0002690 13,476.84 CTA Case No .. 8165 DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. Substantiated Input VAT Claim (Per this Court's findings) for the quarters ending September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008 Exhibit Name of Supplier Third Quarter J1759 ePLDT INC.

Jl759 ePLDTINC.

Jl759 ePLDT INC.

Jl759 ePLDTINC.

Jl760 ePLDT INC.

Jl758 ePLDT INC.

J1761 ePLDT INC.

Jl762 ePLDT INC.

J1762 ePLDT INC.

Jl763 ePLDT INC.

J1763 ePLDTINC.

J1763 ePLDT INC.

J1764 ePLDT INC.

Jl765 ePLDT INC.

Jl766 ePLDT INC.

J1767 ePLDT INC.

11767 ePLDT INC.

Jl768 ePLDTINC.

11768 ePLDTINC.

J1769 ePLDT INC.

11770 ePLDT INC.

Jl771 ePLDT INC.

J1772 ePLDTINC.

11772 ePLDT INC.

Jl773 ePLDT INC.

11772 ePLDT INC.

J1772 ePLDT INC.

Page 12 of 22

AN NEX B

Reference Input Tax 117021 I ,098.87 117022 430.26 117023 685.07 117024 260.00 84324 1,669.71 121250 330.67 121335 735.11 121336 274.49 121337 268.01 121338 211.88 121339 339.38 121352 321.33 121355 299.48 121356 752.77 121357 436.35 3753 31,261.07 8026408 204.00 8026187 204.00 8026192 204.00 7028915 547.49 3007145 204.00 3007129 204.00 3006297 204.00 8013365 204.00 8013368 204.00 1014784 204.00 8025198 204.00 8025199 204.00 8025200 128.57 8025202 204.00 8025203 204.00 8025204 204.00 8025205 204.00 8023850 547.49 8023851 547.49 8023853 204.00 8023854 204.00 8023855 204.00 8023856 204.00 8023857 204.00 8025175 204.00 8025179 204.00 8025178 204.00 8025180 204.00 8025183 204.00 8026203 204.00 8026204 204.00 8026205 204.00 8026206 267.86 8026207 204.00 8026208 204.00 8026209 204.00 8026210 204.00

204.00 8025188 590.70 8025189 204.00 8025190 128.57 8025191 192.86 8025192 204.00 8025193 192.86 8025194 204.00 8026195 204.00 8026253 204.00 8026254 204.00 8026255 204.00 8026256 204.00 8026257 204.00 8026258 204.00 8026259 204.00 8026261 128.57 8026262 128.57 8026264 128.57 8026265 128.57 8026266 204.00 8026272 204.00 8026273 204.00 8026275 204.00 3006316 204.00 8026194 204.00 8026196 204.00 8025176 128.57 3006303 204.00 30073 204.00 6034829 204.00 8013367 490.67 8026188 204.00 8026202 204.00 3007142 188.57 3007124 204.00 8014652 590.70 8025174 204.00 5015262 547.49 5015264 547.49 5015263 547.49 6031951 192.86 7028905 204.00 8023861 547.49 8023862 204.00 8023864 204.00 8023865 204.00 7028920 192.86 8023946 204.00 8023860 547.49 7028927 204.00 ...

Reference Input Tax 8023866 204.00 8023867 204.00 8023868 204.00 7028855 204.00 8023869 204.00 7028918 114.75 7028895 204.00 7028894 204.00 7028930 204.00 7028932 204.00 5015266 204.00 7028935 204.00 7028919 204.00 5015279 204.00 5015278 204.00 5015276 204.00 5015261 210.00 7028921 204.00 7028923 204.00 7028703 547.49 8023858 204.00 7028934 204.00 5015265 210.00 8023843 204.00 8023844 547.49 8023845 204.00 8023846 547.49 8023848 204.00 8023859 547.49 8026409 204.00 6034828 188.57 8023928 192.86 119434 590.70 8025169 204.00

8025 170

267.86 802517 1 267.86

8025 181

Reference Input Tax 12616 150.00 12618 964.29 051823 9,603.02 053137 9,049.89 053138 9,263.19 053965 9,763 .17 056620 9,718.38 362542 3,721.07 364560 2,442.86 365142 2,281 .07 365700 551.25 366050 10,073.57 367696 1,479.64 368878 543.75 368879 I ,395.00 371378 944.46 372072 583 .39 14143 3,600.00 14224 3,600.00 0084246 1,815.53 0084553 1,810.47 0086255 1,326.76 0087792 3,648.00 0090038 1,399.11 0090526 300.00 0090545 720.00 0090546 720.00 0090558 1,628.48 0090559 501 .07 0090560 515.16 0090561 1,674.19 0090610 3,113 .95 0090626 300.00 0194 24,000.00 0195 24,000.00 0196 11,880.00 0197 11,880.00 0198 7,920.00 0199 11 ,880.00 0200 11,880.00 0201 24,000.00 0204 7,920.00 0205 11,880.00 0206 11,880.00 0208 87,000.00 0209 24,000.00 0211 12,000.00 0212 12,000.00 0213 12,000.00 0214 2,400.00 0215 5,400.00 0216 5,400.00 0217 9,600.00

DEUTSCHE KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PTE. LTD. Substantiated Input VAT Claim (Per this Court's findings) for the quarters ending September 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008 Exhibit Name of Supplier Third Quarter 12393 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12295 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12295 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12394 ROADMAPS & BEYOND, INC. 12404 SGV &CO.

12405 SGV &CO.

12406 SGV &CO.

092806 Jl512

ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC

093328 11513

ACCENT MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC

094274 4tll quarter -l'urcJtases OJ capua1 gooas exceeamg P JM TOTAL Page 22 of 22

ANNEX B

Input Tax 1,044.64 15,041.57 439.29 698.36 439.29 f' 4.:1:1, if.J lUW f' n,H~U,7Zb.~H

Footnotes

1
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. (Aichi), G.R. No. 184823, October 6, 20 10.
2
G.R. Nos. 14 1104 & 148763, June 8, 2007.
3
G.R. No. L2 1450, April IS, 1968.
4
Transcript of deliberations of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, on House Bill No. 9210, one ofthe precursors of Republic Act 77 16, September I, 1993.
5
G.R. Nos. 187485, 196 11 3, and 197156, February 12,201 3.