FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225169. October 6, 2021.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.

MACQUARIE OFFSHORE SERVICES PTY., LTD. — PHILIPPINE
BRANCH, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225169 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
petitioner v. Macquarie Offshore Services Pty., Ltd. — Philippine
Branch, respondent).
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (petitioner)
which seeks the reversal and setting aside of the December 8, 2015 Decision
1 and June 9, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc in

CTA EB No. 1208, as well as the dismissal of the petitions for review of
Macquarie Offshore Services Pty., Ltd. — Philippine Branch (respondent),
docketed as CTA Case Nos. 8221 and 8282, before the CTA Second Division.
In its assailed decision, the CTA En Banc denied petitioner's appeal and
affirmed the May 2, 2014 Decision 3 of the CTA Second Division, partially
granting respondent's claim for refund or credit of the unutilized input Value-
Added Tax (VAT) attributable to its zero-rated sales of services for the
second, third, and fourth quarters of its fiscal year (FY) 2009.
Antecedents
Respondent is a multinational company organized and existing under
the laws of Australia engaged in trade inspection security and certification
and in international trade with affiliates, subsidiaries, or branch offices in the
Asia Pacific Region and other foreign markets. 4 As evidenced by a
Certification dated April 10, 2008 issued by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), respondent is duly registered and licensed to do business
as Regional Operating Headquarters (ROHQ) in the Philippines, pursuant to
the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, as amended. As an ROHQ,
respondent shall render various qualifying services to its affiliates and
related parties in the Asia Pacific Region and other foreign markets, viz.:
a. General administration and planning;
b. Business planning and coordination;
c. Sourcing/procurement of raw materials and components;
d. Corporate finance advisory services;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 e. Marketing, control and sales promotion;
f. Training and personnel management;
g. Logistics services;
h. Research and development services and product development;
[i.] Technical support and maintenance;
[j.] Data processing and communication; and
[k.] Business development. 5

Respondent is paid for the aforementioned services in Australian

Dollars (AUD), an acceptable foreign currency inwardly remitted through its
account with Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and
accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
In the course of its operation as a ROHQ rendering services in the
Philippines to its foreign clients, respondent, a VAT-registered taxpayer,
purchased goods and services for which it paid input VAT.
Through separate letters and applications for tax credits/refunds
submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), respondent requested the
refund or credit of the unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales
in the amounts of P2,129,229.47 for the second 6 and third quarter 7 of its FY
2009, and P2,188,948.72 for the fourth quarter 8 of the same FY.
When the BIR failed to act on its administrative claims, respondent filed
two separate petitions for review before the CTA on January 27, 2011 and
April 20, 2011, docketed as CTA Case Nos. 8221 9 and 8282, 10 respectively.
The two cases were eventually consolidated before the CTA Second Division
(CTA Division).
During trial, Garry Taylor (Taylor), respondent's Division Director and
resident agent, and Jerome Antonio B. Constantino, the court-appointed
Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), testified as witnesses for
respondent. In its Resolution dated January 7, 2013, the CTA Division
admitted the documentary evidence formally offered by respondent, with
certain exceptions. Petitioner, in contrast, did not present any evidence in
the case.
The CTA Division Ruling
The CTA Division rendered its Decision on May 2, 2014, finding as
follows:
(a) Respondent timely filed its administrative and judicial
claims for tax refund or credit;
(b) For the second to the fourth quarters of FY 2009,
respondent principally rendered services to Macquarie Financial
Holdings Limited (MFHL), an entity registered under the laws of
Australia and which is not registered with the SEC either as a
corporation or a partnership. Respondent's business transactions with
MFHL were governed by a Service Agreement dated April 1, 2009,
which was duly signed by the representatives and marked with the
common seal of both parties;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 (c) In its VAT Returns for the second to the fourth quarters
of FY 2009, respondent reported a total of P87,339,467.40 zero-rated
sales. However, only the amount of P85,199,922.43, representing
respondent's zero-rated sales to MFHL, was duly supported by sales
invoices, official receipts, and inward remittances submitted by
respondent;
(d) Respondent claimed unutilized input VAT attributable to
its zero-rated sales for the second to the fourth quarters of FY 2009 in
the total amount of P4,318,178.19. After a scrutiny of the evidence on
record, respondent's substantiated input VAT for the said three
quarters amounted to only P3,790,521.74, computed thus:

Claimed Input VAT for

refund/[Tax Credit
Certificate (TCC)] P4,318,178.19

Less: Disallowances

Per ICPA Report P545,904.93

Per this Court's Findings 59,986.41 605,891.34

Balance P3,712,286.85

Add:
Amortization of Input
VAT on domestic
purchases of services 78,234.89

Substantiated Input VAT P3,790,521.74

11

(e) Out of respondent's substantiated input VAT of

P3,970,521.74, only the amount of P3,697,665.76 could be attributed
to its substantiated zero-rated sales of P85,199,922.43, as computed
below:

Substantiated zero-rated sales P85,199,922.43

Divided by total declared zero-rated P87,339,467.40

sales

Rate of substantiated zero-rated 0.975503114

sales

x Substantiated Input VAT P3,790,521.74

Refundable Input VAT P3,697,665.76

12

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 (f) It was established that respondent's claimed input VAT
had not been applied against any output VAT liability during the
period of the claim and in the succeeding quarters, since respondent
had no output VAT due from July 2008 to December 2010, against
which the input VAT might have been credited or applied. Moreover,
in its VAT returns for the second and third quarters of FY 2011,
respondent already deducted the amounts of P2,129,229.47 and
P2,188,948.71, respectively, as "VAT Refund/TCC Claimed." Hence,
the amounts of input VAT subject of the present claims were no
longer included in respondent's aggregated input VAT of
P23,972,276.02 at the end of the third quarter of FY 2011, which was
carried over to the fourth quarter of the same FY.
Ultimately, the CTA Division decreed:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby
PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, [herein petitioner] is ORDERED
TO REFUND or TO ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in the
amount of P3,697,665.76, representing unutilized input VAT
attributable to its zero-rated sales to Macquarie Financial Holdings
Limited (MFHL) for the second, third and fourth quarters of FY March
2009. 13
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 May
2014) was denied for lack of merit by the CTA Division in its July 31, 2014
Resolution. 14
The CTA En Banc Ruling
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CTA En Banc, docketed
as CTA EB No. 1208, alleging that respondent failed to prove that MFHL, the
recipient of its services, was doing business outside the Philippines so that
such sale of services would qualify as zero-rated transactions.
In its December 8, 2015 Decision, the CTA En Banc held that
respondent presented more than just a SEC Certificate of Non-Registration to
prove that MFHL, the recipient of its services, was doing business outside the
Philippines. It quoted extensively from the judicial affidavit of Taylor, who
identified the documents offered and admitted into evidence, establishing
that MFHL is a foreign corporation registered in Australia. In conclusion, the
CTA En Banc wrote:
This Court therefore finds that there is plenty [of] evidence to
support the Court in Division's findings that MFHL, the recipient of
services, is doing business outside the Philippines, hence
respondent's transactions with the same qualify as zero-rated. There
is a (sic) preponderance of said evidence, compared to none
presented by petitioner in any of the proceedings before this Court to
show that otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the instant "Petition for Review" is hereby
DENIED; the Decision dated May 2, 2014 and Resolution dated July
31, 2014 in CTA Case Nos. 8221 and 8282 are AFFIRMED. 15
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (of the Decision dated 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 December 2015) but the same was denied for lack of merit by the CTA En
Banc in its Resolution dated June 9, 2016.
Consequently, petitioner seeks recourse from this Court via the instant
petition for review, raising the sole issue of whether MFHL, the recipient of
respondent's services, is doing business outside the Philippines so that the
sale of such services may qualify as zero-rated transactions.
Citing the cases of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Burmeister
and Wain Scandinavian Contractor Mindanao, Inc. 16 (BWSC) and Accenture,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 17 (Accenture), petitioner maintains
that it is not enough that the recipient of the service be proven to be a
foreign corporation, but that it must also be specifically proven to be a non-
resident foreign corporation (NRFC).
According to petitioner, a taxpayer claiming a tax credit or refund has
the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of that claim. Tax refunds,
like tax exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer. Petitioner
asserts that respondent failed to discharge this burden. At best, respondent
established by its evidence that MFHL is a foreign corporation not registered
in the Philippines. However, it does not automatically follow that MFHL is a
non-resident foreign corporation or one doing business outside the
Philippines.
Respondent counters that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court must only raise questions of law; that the findings of fact of
the CTA are entitled to respect, if not finality; and that the decision of the
CTA is supported by substantial evidence. Respondent contends that it has
presented more than enough proof to show that its client MFHL is a foreign
entity doing business outside the Philippines and the CTA had correctly
considered respondent's evidence in their totality.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the instant petition and sustains the
findings of fact of the CTA Division and En Banc.
Respondent bases its claim for tax refund or credit of the excess input
VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales on Section 112 (A), in relation to Sec.
108 (B) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9337,
quoted hereunder:
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 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 or 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 and regulations of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)
It was in BWSC 18 that the Court first categorically declared that for
zero-rated sale of services, it is not only required that the services be other
than "processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods" and that payment
for such services be in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in
accordance with BSP rules, but it is also essential that the recipient of
such services is doing business outside the Philippines. 19 In said
case, the payer-recipient of the services of BWSC was a Consortium, a joint-
venture of non-resident foreign corporations, which was doing business in
the Philippines as it entered into a 15-year contract to operate and maintain
power barges of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). Since the
services of BWSC to the Consortium were not being supplied to a person
doing business outside the Philippines, the Court held therein that said
services could not legally qualify for 0% VAT.
The Court, in Accenture, applied the BWSC case and denied the claim
for refund or credit of Accenture because the latter failed to establish that
the recipients of its services were doing business outside the Philippines so
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 as to qualify for zero-rating. The Court stressed therein that it was not
enough that the recipient of the service be proven to be a foreign
corporation; rather, it must be specifically proven to be a non-resident
foreign corporation, 20 i.e ., a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or
business in the Philippines. 21 The Court expounded, to wit:
There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes "doing" or
"engaging in" or "transacting" business. We ruled thus in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways
Corporation:
x x x. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes
"doing" or "engaging in" or "transacting" business. Each
case must be judged in the light of its peculiar
environmental circumstances. The term implies a
continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or
works or the exercise of some of the functions normally
incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial
gain or for the purpose and object of the business
organization. "In order that a foreign corporation may be
regarded as doing business within a State, there must be
continuity of conduct and intention to establish a
continuous business, such as the appointment of a local
agent, and not one of a temporary character."
A taxpayer claiming a tax credit or refund has the burden of
proof to establish the factual basis of that claim. Tax refunds, like tax
exemptions, are construed strictly against the taxpayer.
Accenture failed to discharge this burden. It alleged and
presented evidence to prove only that its clients were foreign
entities. However, as found by both the CTA Division and the CTA En
Banc, no evidence was presented by Accenture to prove the fact that
the foreign clients to whom petitioner rendered its services were
clients doing business outside the Philippines.
As ruled by the CTA En Banc, the Official Receipts,
Intercompany Payment Requests, Billing Statements, Memo Invoices-
Receivable, Memo Invoices-Payable, and Bank Statements presented
by Accenture merely substantiated the existence of sales, receipt of
foreign currency payments, and inward remittance of the proceeds of
such sales duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules, all of
these were devoid of any evidence that the clients were doing
business outside of the Philippines. 22 ( citations omitted)
Consistent with BWSC and Accenture, the Court, in Sitel Phils. Corp. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 23 denied the claim of Sitel for refund of
the input VAT attributable to its zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales as
it fell short of proving that the recipients of its call center services were
foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines. While Sitel's
documentary evidence, which included certifications issued by the SEC and
agreements between Sitel and its foreign clients, may have established that
Sitel had rendered services to foreign corporations in 2004 and had received
payments therefor through inward remittances, said documents failed to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 specifically prove that such foreign clients were doing business outside the
Philippines or had a continuity of commercial dealings outside the
Philippines. 24
Indeed, the foregoing three cases already settled that for the sale of
services to qualify as a zero-rated transaction, it must be established that
the recipient of the services is not only a foreign corporation, but must also
be a non-resident corporation or one that is not engaged in trade or business
in the Philippines. Nonetheless, as acknowledged in Accenture, without a
specific definition of what constitutes "doing business" or "engaging in" or
"transacting" business, the evidence necessary and sufficient shall be
judged in every case depending on its own peculiar surrounding
circumstances.
More squarely on point with the instant case is Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Deutsche Knowledge Services Pte. Ltd. , 25 (DKS), as it
similarly involved the claim of DKS, a ROHQ, for tax refund or credit of
excess input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales of qualifying services to
affiliates. The Court granted the claim, finding sufficient evidence that the
clients of DKS are NRFCs, thus:
For purposes of zero-rating under Section 108(B)(2) of the Tax
Code, the claimant must establish the two components of a client's
NRFC status, viz.: (1) that their client was established under the laws
of a country not the Philippines or, simply, is not a domestic
corporation; and (2) that it is not engaged in trade or business in the
Philippines. To be sure, there must be sufficient proof of both of
these components: showing not only that the clients are
foreign corporations, but also are not doing business in the
Philippines.
Such proof must be especially required from ROHQs such as
DKS. That the law expressly authorizes ROHQs to render services to
local and foreign affiliates alike only stresses the ROHQ's burden to
distinguish among their clients' nationalities and actual places of
business operations and establish that they are seeking refund or
credit of input VAT only to the extent of their sales of services to
foreign clients doing business outside the Philippines.
To recall, the CTA found that the SEC Certification of Non-
Registration of Company and Authenticated Articles of Association
and/or Certificates of Registration/Good Standing/Incorporation
sufficiently established the NRFC status of 11 of DKS's affiliates
clients.
The Court upholds these findings.
The Court accords the CTA's factual findings with utmost
respect, if not finality, because the Court recognizes that it has
necessarily developed an expertise on tax matters. Significantly, both
the CTA Division and CTA En Banc gave credence to the
aforementioned documents as sufficient proof of NRFC status. The
Court shall not disturb its findings without any showing of grave
abuse of discretion considering that the members of the tax court are
in the best position to analyze the documents presented by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 parties.
In any case, after a judicious review of the records, the Court
still [does] not find any reason to deviate from the court a quo's
findings. To the Court's mind, the SEC Certifications of Non-
Registration show that their affiliates are foreign
corporations. On the other hand, the articles of
association/certificates of incorporation stating that these
affiliates are registered to operate in their respective home
countries, outside the Philippines are prima facie evidence
that their clients are not engaged in trade or business in the
Philippines.
Proof of the above-mentioned second component sets
the present case apart from Accenture, Inc. v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue and Sitel Philippines Corp. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In these cases, the claimants
similarly presented SEC Certifications and client service agreements.
However, the Court consistently ruled that documents of this nature
only establish the first component (i.e., that the affiliate is foreign).
The absence of any other competent evidence (e.g., articles of
association/certificates of incorporation) proving the second
component (i.e., that the affiliate is not doing business here in the
Philippines) shall be fatal to a claim for credit or refund of excess
input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales. (emphases supplied)
In the present case, among the documentary evidence submitted by
respondent, and admitted by the CTA Division, are the following:

Exhibit Description

"BB" Sworn Statement of Mr. Garry Taylor (To

Questions Propounded by Atty. Lindy Andre P.
Ablana) for CTA Case Nos. 8221 & 8282, dated
25 November 2011

... ...

"DD" Services Agreement between Macquarie Offshore

Services Pty. Ltd. — Philippine Branch and
Macquarie Financial Holdings Limited dated 1st
April 2009

"FF" [Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)]:

Certification of Non-Registration of Company
(Macquarie Financial Holdings Limited), dated 3
May 2011

"GG" Consular Authentication of annexed document,

dated 7 January 2011

"GG-1" Australian Securities and Investments

Commission (ASIC): Certificate of Registration on
Change of Name (Macquarie Group Holdings No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 2 Ltd. to Macquarie Financial Holdings Limited
(ACN 124 071 398)

"GG-2" ASIC: Certificate of Registration of a Company —

Macquarie Group Holdings No. 2 Ltd. (ACN 124
071 398)

"GG-3" Constitution of Macquarie Financial Holdings

Limited

"HH" Consular Authentication of annexed documents

(Re: ASIC Company Extract), 07 January 2011

"HH-1" ASIC Company Extract — Macquarie Financial

Holdings Limited Registration [D]etails

"HH-2" ASIC Company Extract — Macquarie Financial

Holdings Limited: Current Organization Details

"HH-3" ASIC Company Extract — Macquarie Financial

Holdings Limited: Registered Office

"HH-4" ASIC Company Extract — Macquarie Financial

Holdings Limited: Principal Place of Business 26

Notably, respondent presented a certification of non-registration of

company issued by the SEC to establish that MFHL, the sole recipient of
respondent's services, is a foreign corporation. It further submitted (a)
consular authentication of annexed documents, which include the certificate
of change of name from Macquarie Group Holdings to MFHL, certificate of
registration of MFHL, and constitution of MFHL, all issued by the ASIC; and (b)
consular authentication of ASIC Company Extracts of MFLH showing the
latter's registration details, current organization details, registered office,
and principal place of business, all of which, taken together, prove that MFLH
is registered to operate in Australia. As declared in DKS, these authenticated
corporate documents from ASIC are enough to constitute prima facie
evidence that MFHL is not engaged in trade or business in the
Philippines. Since there is sufficient evidence herein to substantiate both
components for the NRFC status of MFHL, then respondent's sale of services
to MFHL qualify as zero-rated transactions.
It is also worthy to reiterate the pronouncement in DKS that the factual
findings of the CTA are accorded utmost respect, if not finality, in recognition
of the expertise it has necessarily developed on tax matters. With both the
CTA Division and the CTA En Banc in this case giving weight and credence to
respondent's documentary evidence as sufficient proof that MFHL is an
NRFC, the Court shall not disturb such finding, absent any showing of grave
abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition for review is DENIED for
lack of merit.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 The letter dated March 12, 2021 of Atty. Theresa G. Cinco-Bactat,
Executive Clerk of Court III, Court of Tax Appeals, in compliance with the
Resolution dated January 25, 2021, transmitting the complete records of CTA
EB No. 1208 with 142 pages, two (2) volumes of CTA Case No. 8221, CTA
Case No. 8282, ICPA Report, petitioner's FOE, and transcript of stenographic
notes, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 64-75; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, with
Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Juanita C.
Castaneda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova,
Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Associate Justice
Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas, concurring.

2. Id. at 81-83.

3. Id. at 441-470; penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, with Associate

Justices Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas,
concurring.

4. Id. at 119.

5. Id.
6. July to September 2008.

7. October to December 2008.

8. January to March 2009.

9. Respondent's judicial claim for tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT
attributable to its zero-rated sales for the second and third quarters of FY
2009.
10. Respondent's judicial claim for tax refund or credit of unutilized input VAT
attributable to its zero-rated sale for the fourth quarter of FY 2009.

11. Rollo , p. 463.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 12. Id.

13. Id. at 469.

14. Id. at 491-493; penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. Casanova, with Associate
Justices Juanito C. Castañeda and Amelia R. Cotangco-Manalastas,
concurring.

15. Id. at 74.

16. 541 Phil. 119 (2007).

17. 690 Phil. 679 (2012).

18. Supra note 16, at 132.

19. The BWSC case still involved the provisions of the previous Tax Code, Section
102 (b) (2) of which described zero-rated sales of services as "[s]ervices
other than those mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, the
consideration for which is paid for in acceptable foreign currency and
accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)." Note that unlike the present wording of Section
108(B) (2), it did not explicitly require that the services be "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."

20. Supra note 17, at 699.

21. Section 22 (I), Tax Code of 1997, as amended.

22. Supra note 17, at 699-700.

23. 805 Phil. 464 (2017).

24. Id. at 485.

25. G.R. No. 234445, July 15, 2020.

26. Rollo , pp. 39-40.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com