Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Consolidated with CTA Case Nos. 8546 & 8595

AMENDED DECISION

Fa bon- Victorino, J.:

This

resolves the two (2)

Motions

for

Partial

Reconsideration

separately filed by petitioner and respondent on May 28, 2015 1 and on May 29, 2015 2 , respectively, assailing the Decision3 promulgated on May 8, 2015, t he dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the

Petitions

for Review filed on June 28, 2012, September 27, 2012, and December 28, 2012 are

PARTIALLY

GRANTED.

Accordingly, respondent

Commissioner

of

Internal

Revenue is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or

TO

ISSUE

A

TAX

CREDIT

CERTIFICATE

in favor of petitioner Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. the reduced amount of FIFTY-THREE MILlON

FIFTY- EIGHT

THOUSAND

SEVEN

/

HUNDRED SEVENTY- NINE PESOS AND ~

67/100 (PS3,058,779.67), representinJI its unutilized excess input VAT for the 2" , 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2010 attributable to its zero-rated receipts for the same period.

July

9, 2015, petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition to respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

Respondent, on the other hand, failed to file her

Comment/Opposition

to petitioner's

Motion for Partial

Reconsideration despite due notice, per Records Verification Report of the Judicial Records Division dated July 8, 2015.

Respondent's Motion

for

Partial Reconsideration:

In her motion partly assailing the Decision of May 8, 2015, respondent insists that petitioner's claim for refund should be denied in its entirety for its failure to submit complete documents in the administrative level required under Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. She argues that pursuant to Section 112(C) of the NIRC, as amended, the 120-day audit period shall commence only after the submission of complete documents in support of the application filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and only after the expiration of the said period may the taxpayer seek judicial intervention. In its Comment/Opposition thereto, petitioner denied respondent's contention saying that it submitted complete documents in support of its administrative claims for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate for its unutilized input / VAT attributable to zero-rated sales for the 2"d, 3rd, and 4th ~

AMENDED DEOSION

quarters of 2010. Its supporting documents were submitted on January 31, 2012, May 3, 2012, and August 1, 2012, simultaneous with the filing of the respective administrative claims for refund with the BIR Large Taxpayers Regular Audit Division 3.

Citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue

vs. Team Energy Corporation, 4 petitioner contends that it is the taxpayer, and not the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who determines what constitutes "complete documents" under Section 112(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

Respondent's motion must fail. In cases more than one, 5 this Court has consistently ruled that the alleged non-submission of complete documents at the administrative level is not fatal to a claim for refund in the judicial level. The Court En Bane, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 6 ruled that: "It has been settled in several CTA en bane cases that judicial claims should not be denied on the sole ground that the taxpayer allegedly failed to submit before the BIR the complete documents in support of its administrative claim for refund. In the case of Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue We passed upon the issue on the non- submission of supporting documents in the administrative level as NOT fatal to a claim for refund. The pertinent portion of the Decision provides:

'Non-submission of supporting documents in the administrative level is not fatal to a claim for refund. Judicial 4 CTA EB No. 652, October 4, 2011. 5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, CTA EB Case No. 657, April 4, 2012; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Panay Power Company, CTA EB Case No. 683, November 29, 2011; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toledo Power Company, CTA EB Case No. 589, Resolution dated January 12, 2011; and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CE Luzon Geothermal Power Company, Inc., CTA EB Case No. 474, September 1, 2009.

6 CTA EB Case No. 775, Resolution dated November 13, 2012.

AMENDED DEGSION

claims are litigated de novo and decided based on what has been presented and formally offered by the parties during the trial. In the case of CIR vs. Manila Mining Corporation, it was explained that 'Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is described as a court of record. As cases filed before it are litigated de novo, party litigants should prove every minute aspect of their cases.' Finally, pieces of evidence submitted in the administrative proceeding have no evidentiary value unless presented and formally offered before the Court.'

This

Court

is not barred from rece1vmg, evaluating and appreciating evidence formally offered before it. Once the claim for refund has been elevated to the Court, the admissibility, materiality, relevancy, probative value and weight of evidence presented therein become subject to the Rules of Court. The question of whether or not the evidence submitted by a party is sufficient to warrant the granting of a claim for refund lies within the sound discretion and judgment of the Court . .. " (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted) To repeat, petitioner in the instant cases was able to sufficiently substantiate its judicial claim in accordance with law and jurisprudence to the satisfaction of the Court. Precisely the Court granted the prayer for refund or issuance of tax credit, albeit partially.

Petitioner's

Motion

for

Partial Reconsideration:

In its motion, petitioner disagrees with the Court's conclusion that "[t]o be considered as non-resident foreign / corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each

AMENDED DEOSION

entity must be supported, at the very least, by both Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) certificate of non-registration of corporation/partnership and AM/net Company Profile Fact Sheet, Memorandum & Articles of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, and Certificate of Registration on Change o[f] Name". According to petitioner, there is no law or regulation which expressly specifies or limits the document to prove that a non-resident foreign corporation is engaged in business conducted outside the Philippines under Section 108(B)(2) of the Tax Code.

Allegedly, the submission of certificate/articles of foreign incorporation/association is not necessary when the information provided therein can be supplied through other forms of documentation and evidence like:

(¹) the various business registration documents (Exhibit "HHH", inclusive of submarkings), which do not merely prove the organization of its foreign clients, but also show that its foreign clients are actually conducting business outside the country; and

(²) the IntraGroup Service Agreements (Exhibit "GGG", inclusive of submarkings), which clearly indicate the place where its non-resident clients are doing business.

Thus, petitioner submits that the following entities be considered as non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines:

Supported by

SEC

Certification

Intragroup

Foreign of Non-

Service

Registration

Registration

Agreements

Documents

Client

(Exhibit No.)

(Exhibit No.)

(Exhibit No.)

AO DB Securities (Kazakhstan)

"GGG-342" to

"HHH-529" to

DB Consortia S. Cons. ARL

"III-44"

"GGG-347"

"HHH-553"

"III-21", DB Finance Inc.

11111-81 11 - -

DB HedoeWorks LLC

11111-23" - -

"GGG-330" to

DB International (Asia) Limited

"III-22"

"GGG-332"

-

"GGG-40" to

"HHH-558" to

DB Securities Services NJ Inc. -

"GGG-58"

"HHH-564"

"111-20",

"GGG-40" to

DB Services New Jersey Inc.

"111-32"

"GGG-58"

-

DB Trust Company Limited Japan

"III-22"

"GGG-327" to

-

Deutsche Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.

Deutsche Bank (Malaysia) Berhad

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Abu Dhabi

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale

Amsterdam

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Banqkok

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Jakarta

Deutsche Aktienqesellshaft Filiale Labuan

Deutsche Aktienqesellshaft Filiale Mumbai

Deutsche Aktienqesellshaft Filiale Praque

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Riad

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Seoul

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Taipei

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Tokyo

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Wien

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale Zurich

Deutsche Aktiengesellshaft Filiale

Inlandsbank

Deutsche Bank Luxembourg S.A.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Deutsche Bank PBC Spolka Akcyjna

Deutsche Bank Sociedad Anomina Espanola

Deutsche Bank Societa per Azioni

Deutsche Bank Societa Trustees Malaysia

Berhad

Global Markets Centre Private Limited

P.T. Deutsche Securities Indonesia

RREEF Management GMBH

RREEF Management L.L.C.

Reud Blass and CIE AG

"111-42 11 ,

"III-79"

"111-51 II - "111-3",

"III-30"

"III-75"

"111-71" -

"III-73"

11111-10"

"III-56"

"III-36", 11111-70"

"III-64"

"III -8", "111-28 11

"III-57"

"111-5",

"III-59"

"111-2",

11III -77

11 "111-11"

"III-25"

"111-18", "111-62" "111-4" 11111-49",

"III-60"

- 11111-54"

"III-17"

"III-24"

- -

"GGG-329"

"GGG-16" to

"HHH-75" to

"GGG-18"

"HHH-79"

"GGG-75" to

"GGG-86",

"GGG-90" to

"GGG-94"

-

"GGG-180" to

"HHH-88" to

"GGG-182"

"HHH-91"

"GGG-183" to

"HHH-1" to

"GGG-187''

"HHH-19"

"GGG-221" to

"GGG-225"

-

"GGG-135" to

"GGG-242"

-

"GGG-75" to

"GGG-86"

-

"GGG-226" to

"HHH-217" to

"GGG-229"

"HHH-219"

"GGG-130" to

"GGG-134"

-

"GGG-188" to

"GGG-193"

-

"GGG-252" to

"HHH-38" to

"GGG-257"

11HHH-40"

"GGG-87" to

"GGG-89"

-

"GGG-263" to

"GGG-270"

-

"GGG-72" to

"HHH-166" to

"GGG-74"

"HHH-172"

"GGG-205" to

"HHH-21" to

"GGG-210"

"HHH-23"

"GGG-175" to

"GGG-179"

- "HHH-52",

"GGG-271" to

"HHH-265" to

"GGG-275"

"HHH-275"

- -

"GGG-317" to

"GGG-321"

- - -

"GGG-282" to

"HHH-519" to

"GGG-287"

"HHH-528" -

"GGG-75" to

"HHH-554" to

"GGG-86"

"HHH-557"

"GGG-339" to

"GGG-341"

"HHH-565"

"GGG-309" to

"GGG-313"

"HHH-83 11

"GGG-153" to

"HHH-318" to

"GGG-157"

"HHH-321"

"GGG-40" to

"GGG-58"

-

"GGG-333" to

"HHH-466" to

"GGG-338"

"HHH-479"

erA case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595

Petitioner also seeks to set aside the disallowance of its claimed input VAT of P14,401,339.27, representing its out- of-period claims, citing Revenue Memorandum Circular

(RMC)

No.

42-03 which allegedly allows out-of-period claims.

Petitioner as well pleads to reverse the disallowance of the amount of P14,817,885.67, representing its input VAT supported by invoices and Official Receipts (OR) wherein the input VAT was not separately indicated. It argues that the requirement of separately indicating the amount of input VAT in ORs and invoices is for the purpose of determining the exact amount of input tax due on the transaction. Petitioner opines that the substantiation requirement will still be served despite the absence of the required separate indication of input VAT as the input tax due may still be computed from the information in the ORs and invoices issued to it. The error belongs to its suppliers, hence, it should not be penalized for the same. Petitioner also gives premium to the report of the

Court-commissioned

Independent

Certified

Public

Accountant (ICPA) to the effect that all its input VAT incurred on purchases of capital goods exceeding P1 Million for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010 are duly substantiated, hence, refundable. Lastly, petitioner disagrees with the Court's holding applying its substantiated input VAT for the 2nd, Yd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010 against its output tax liability in the amount of P5,787,909.33 for the same period. According to petitioner, Section 4.110-7(b) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 6-2005 (sic), in relation to Section llO(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, allows a taxpayer to apply the amount of its input tax carried over from the previous period to its output tax liability. It points out that its excess input tax carried over from the previous quarters is more than enough to cover its output tax liability for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010.

/ Petitioner's motion is partly meritorious.

CfA Case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595

On petitioner's disallowed zero-rated sales Consistent is the rule that to be considered a non- resident foreign corporation doing business outside the Philippines, each entity must be supported at the very least by the

Certification

of

Non-Registration

of Corporation/Partnership duly issued by the SEC and either the articles/certificate of foreign incorporation/association or printed screenshots of US SEC (or the official regulatory body of a particular jurisdiction) website showing the state/province/country where the entity was organized or any other equivalent document. To reiterate, each of the documents submitted by petitioner in the instant case, namely, the SEC Certifications of Non-Registration of Company 7 ;

Intragroup Service

Agreements 8 ;

and various registration documents (i.e., Aminet Company Profile Fact Sheet,

Memorandum of

Association

&

Articles

of Association,

Certificate

of Incorporation and Certificate of Registration on Change on Name)9 on their own are deemed insufficient. While the SEC Certificates of Non-Registration show that the entities named therein are not registered corporations/partnerships in the Philippines, it does not indicate, much more prove, that such entities are non- resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines.

The same with the service agreements which only show the names and addresses of petitioner's customers to whom it renders services. Also, with the AMinet Company Profile Fact Sheet, Memorandum and Articles of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, and Certificate of Registration on Change on Name which only establish that the entities named therein were incorporated/organized abroad but not necessarily not doing 1 business in the Philippines. llv" 7 Exhibits "III-1" to "III-84" and "AA" to "AA-2". 8 Exhibits "GGG-1" to "GGG-401" and "Y" to "Y-3". 9 Exhibits "HHH-1" to "HHH-565", "X" to "X-2", and "Z" to "Z-2".

AMENDED DEOSION

Moreover, the various foreign registration documents presented by petitioner on which it relied its present action could not be given probative value as they were written or printed in foreign language without English translation. There was no way by which the Court might be able to determine the contents thereof and ascertain the name of the entity indicated therein as well as the attestations/certifications made. As tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions, there is need to employ a stricter standard in determining whether the submissions filed by the taxpayer is sufficient to support his claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate.

On petitioner's out-of-period claim Petitioner submits that the disallowance of the out-of- period claims is untenable given that RMC No. 42-03 specifically allows it.

The Court is not convinced.

Petitioner should declare the input VAT in the corresponding taxable quarters when the purchases of goods were consummated or when the purchases of services were paid, as the case may be, pursuant to Section 110 (A) (2) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which reads as follows: SEC. 110. Tax Credits. -

(A)

Creditable input Tax. -

XXX

XXX

XXX

(2) The input tax on domestic purchase or importation of goods or properties by a VAT-registered person shall be creditable:

AMENDED DEOSION

(a) To the purchaser upon consummation of sale and on importation of goods or properties; and (b) To the importer upon payment of the value-added tax prior to the release of the goods from the custody of the Bureau of Customs.

Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (P1,000,000):

Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee.

(Emphasis supplied) The discussion of the Court on the foregoing prov1s1on in the case of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. vs. CIR, 10 is instructive, thus:

The alleged unutilized input VAT of P5,820,863.87 should be denied since the supporting invoices and official receipts thereof bore dates which were earlier than the period of petitioner's claim. Section 110(A)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code provides: 'Sec. 110.

Tax Credits. - 10 CTA Case Nos. 6368 and 6480, December 15, 2004. ./ erA case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595

A.

Creditable Input Tax.

2.

The input tax on domestic purchases of goods or properties shall be creditable: (a) To the purchaser upon consummation of sale and on importation of goods or properties; and However, in the case of purchases of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or licensee upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee.' It is clear from the above-quoted prov1s1ons of law that for purchases of goods, the corresponding input value added taxes of which is creditable to the purchaser upon consummation of sale, that is, upon the issuance of the corresponding invoice. On the other hand, for purchases of services, the corresponding input value added taxes of which is creditable to the purchaser upon payment of compensation, rental, royalty or fee, that is, upon the date of official receipt. Section 110(A) is explicit. It states 'upon consummation', in the case of domestic purchases of goods, and 'upon payment', in the case of purchases of services.

It

does not provide any qualification, such as 'upon delivery of invoice or official receipt' which is the main thesis of petitioner's contention. In a resolution of the case entitled

Telecommunications

Technologies

Philippines, Inc.

vs.

Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 6168, promulgated on July 28, 2004, this Court elucidated that 'the input VAT on domestic / purchases of goods or properties shall be allowed as tax credit to the purchaser upon consummation of sale, which means upon issuance by the seller of the VAT sales invoice evidencing the sale of goods/properties. On the other hand, the input VAT on purchases of services shall be available as tax credit to the purchaser only upon payment of the compensation or fee i.e., upon issuance by the seller of the VAT official receipt evidencing receipt of the payment for services performed or yet to be performed.' Thus, it is indubitable on the part of the petitioner to declare the input value added taxes on domestic purchases of goods and services at the end of the corresponding taxable quarter where purchases of goods were consummated, as evidenced by VAT invoice and for payment of services, as evidenced by VAT official receipt.

Therefore, the amount of input VAT of P5,820,863.87 which is supported by VAT invoices and official receipts dated earlier than the period of petitioner's claims can no longer be claimed for refund pursuant to Section 110(A) in relation with Section 112(A) of the

1997 National

Internal

Revenue Code.

In fine, petitioner's claimed input VAT on purchases of goods/services supported by invoices/OR dated outside the period of claim cannot be considered since the input taxes should have been declared in the corresponding taxable quarter when the purchases of goods were consummated or when purchases of services were paid pursuant to Section 110 (A) (2) in relation to Section 112 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

On petitioner's input taxes not separately indicated in the receipts/invoices

Petitioner also insists that it should not be penalized for its client's error in not separately indicating the amount of VAT in the OR's. The law is however clear. Section 113 (B)

(2) (a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides: "SEC. 113. Invoicing and Accounting Requirements for VAT-registered Persons.

XXX

XXX

XXX

(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:

XXX

XXX

XXX

(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:

(a) The amount of the tax shall be shown as a separate item in the invoice or receipt;" (Emphasis supplied) Hence, input taxes covered with invoices or ORs wherein the amount of input VAT was not separately indicated were properly disallowed for it was in violation of Section 113 (B) (2) (a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. On applying petitioner's input VAT for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010 against its output VAT liability for the same period instead of its input VAT carried over from previous quarters.

Citing Section 110(B) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, / in relation to Section 4.110-7(b) of RR No. 6-2005 (sic), .

erA Case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595 petitioner asserts that a taxpayer may apply the amount of its input VAT carried over from the previous period to its output VAT liability.

The Court does not agree.

Under the NIRC of 1997, specifically Section 110, the rule is that any input tax shall be creditable against the output tax only if it is evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt. Quoted below is the relevant portion of the said provision:

"SEC. 110. Tax Credits. - "(A) Creditable Input Tax. - "(1) Any input tax evidenced by a VAT invoice or official receipt issued in accordance with Section 113 hereof on the following transactions shall be creditable against the output tax: xxx" (Emphasis supplied) In this case, petitioner failed to present and offer in evidence any VAT invoice or official receipt to support the "Input Tax Carried Over from Previous Quarter" which petitioner seeks to be credited or charged against its output VAT liability for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010. On petitioner's input VAT on purchases of capital goods exceeding one (1) million pesos As aptly found by the ICPA, out of the ¥>2,573,272.70 input VAT claim on capital goods exceeding P1 Million, only ¥>2,099,626.27 is duly substantiated in accordance with law / and regulations:

CY 2010

Per Return

2nd Quarter p 824,557.71 3rd Quarter 517,803.43 4th Quarter 1,230,911.56

Total

p 2,573,272.70

Accounted as:

Substantiated

Disallowed per

Input VAT

ICPA findings p 373,211.78 p 451,345.93 517,803.43 - 1,208,611.06 22,300.50 p 2,099,626.27 p 473,646.43 The ICPA disallowed the input VAT of P451,345.93 on the ground that the supporting sales invoices were not dated within the period of claim, detailed as follows: 11

Invoice

Date of

Supplier

Number

Invoice

Input VAT

Accent Micro Technologies Inc. 109303 3/9/2010 p 439 066.07 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 109683 3/25/2010 1 347.43 Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. 109734 3/26/2010 4 180.50 Accent Micro Technolooies Inc. 109736 3/26/2010 2 571.43 Accent Micro Technolooies Inc. 109754 3/26/2010 4 180.50 p 51 345.93 With regard to the input VAT of P22,300.50 pertaining to petitioner's purchases from Accent Micro Technologies, Inc. purportedly under invoice number 111493 dated June 8, 2010 12 , the ICPA found that it has no supporting sales invoice.

In the assailed Decision, the Court held that out of the P373,211.78 and P517,803.43 totalling P891,015.21 substantiated input VAT on capital goods exceeding P1 Million for the second and third quarters of CY 2010, only the amount of P137,648.00 is creditable for the said taxable quarters pursuant to Section 110(A)(2) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

As to the fourth quarter of CY 2010, this Court noted that in the schedule13 of input VAT submitted by petitioner, the purchases were classified only by either "Goods" or "Services" without distinctively classifying the capital goods ,._/'

exceeding P1 million in the amount of P1,230,911.56. Hence, the

Court

allowed the entire amount of P1,208,611.06 as creditable input VAT for the fourth quarter of CY 2010.

But as correctly pointed out by petitioner, based on

Schedule 3 14 (Purchases/Importation of Capital Goods -

Aggregated Amount Exceeds P1 Million) of its Quarterly VAT Return for the fourth quarter of CY 2010, the input VAT of P1,230,911.56 pertains to capital goods exceeding Pl Million purchased on December 01, 2010 with estimated useful life of 48 months.

Hence, the substantiated amount of P1,208,611.06 out of the total input VAT claim of P1,230,911.56 shall be amortized as follows:

Allowable Input

Month

Useful Life

Monthly Input

VAT for the 4th

Acquired

Input VAT

(in months)

Tax Credit

Quarter of 2010

Dec. 2010 P1 208 611.06 48 P25 179.40 P25,179.40 In fine, the amount of P70,989,948.30 substantiated input taxes for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of CY 2010 as found in the May 8, 2015 Decision, shall be reduced to P69,332,870.21, computed as follows: 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

Total

Input VAT Claim

p 41 465 493.51 p 35 225 151.47 p 43,150,363.14 p 119 84h_008.12

Less: Disallowances

Per !CPA Findings p 9,555 114.73 p 3 534,112.42 p 17,448 022.10 p 30 537,249.25 Per this Court's further verification 8 036 029.91 4 898 360.14 4 626 053.31 17 560 443.36

Input VAT on Purchase of Capital

Goods exceeding P1 Million 824 557.71 517 803.43 1 230 911.56 2 573 272.70

Less: Allowable Input Tax Credit for the Period of Claim

(69 707.00) (67 941.00) (25 179.40) (162 827.40)

Total Disallowances

p 18 345 995.35 p 8 882 334.99 p 23 279 807.57 p 50 508 137.91 Substantiated excess Input VAT P23,119,498.16 P26,342,816.48 "19,870,555.57 P69,332 870.21 Subsequently, P63,544,960.88 can receipts declared P5,288,593,152.05 14 Exhibit "DDD-12".

only the excess input

VAT

of be attributed to the entire zero-rated by petitioner in the amount of and only the input

VAT

of

CfA Case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595

P51,726,310.11 is attributable to the valid zero-rated receipts of P4,241,066,062.98, as computed below: 2nd Qtr 2010 3rd Qtr 2010 4th Qtr 2010

Total

Substantiated Input VAT

fO 23 119,498.16 p 26 34~816.48 fO 19,870 555.57 fO 69 332 870.21

Output Tax Due

1 204 717.15 3 443 351.07

1139 841.11

5 787 909.33

Excess Input VAT

p 21,914,781.01 p 22,899,465.41 p 18,730,714.46 p 63,5441960.88

Valid Zero-Rated Receipts

1"1 320,006 170.61 P1 457,036 341.73 P1,464 023,550.64 P4,241 066,062.98

Total Declared Zero-Rated

P1,431,219,805.14 P1,930,688,594.64 P1,926,684,752.27 P5,288,593,152.05

Receipts

% of Valid Zero-Rated

Receipts to Total Declared

92.2294511% 75.4671854% 75.9866682%

Zero-Rated Receipts

Multiplied by Excess Input VAT

p 21,914,781.01 p 22,899,465.41 p 18,730,714.46 p 63,544,960.88

Excess Input VAT

Attributable to Valid Zero-

Rated Receipts

p 20 211 882.24 p 17,281,582.02 p 14,232,845.85 p 51,726,310.11

WHEREFORE, respondent's

Motion

for

Partial

Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. On the other hand, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The May 8, 2015 Decision of the Court is hereby MODIFIED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ORDERED TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. the reduced amount of FIFTY-ONE MILLION SEVEN

HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED

TEN

PESOS

and 11/100 (P51,726,310.11), representing its unutilized excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the second, third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2010.

ESPE

' . FABON-VICTORINO ciate Justice CfA Case Nos. 8510, 8546 & 8595 We concur:

LOVELL ~TISTA

Assoga'te Justice

I

h c._____ ~-~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

LOVE~TISTA

Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant

to

Section

13

of Article

VIII

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

Presiding Justice