CTA Case No. 4784 (Decision)

REPUDLIC OF Tl-fE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY, C. T. A. CnSE NO. 't 784 P<:!t it ioner�, - vet'SUS - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNnL REVENUE, Respondent. K- - - - - .- - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- --- K DECISION This is a review of the 1983 deficiency documentary /) stamps tax <DST) as~;essment on sale of secur'i~:ie~; in the amount of P3,2B7,399.20 i s s u e d by the 0 u r� e .," u �.1 f rnternal Revenue <BIR) .against Sec:ur�ity Bank and T,�-ust Comp.3.n'i <SBTC>. Pet i t i on E' r i s a d 1.1 1 y r e g i s t E' red d o me ::. ~- i c c o l" p or at 1 on engagE'd in commercial banking. It i s a mr mbe ,- o f t h e Bankers Association of the Philippines <BAPJ. lt received from the B. I.R., sometimF before March 1'3, 1987, a Pre-Assessment Notice, dated MLwch E.., .1987, containing the following details, tee wit: 31 )

m:::crs:oN - C. T. A. Cas c: r�-! o. t4 7 8 '� - 2 -- A. On Pro1issory N~tes Issued Pro:1ssory noh:s iss~trd during the yrar - P 926,365,~6.00 Dc:utentary sta�p tax d~r thereon : P 926,38fl,2SS.OO I P0.65 = ............................. P2,0101752.0� P200 B. On Sale of Se:urities under Repurchase Agreecent Sicurities sold dur1ng thP ypar- ��������� ~3.022,803,857.63 P3,022,803,857.63 I P0.25"' ............................ 3,77B,SOII.82 P200 Tot a 1 rE.,7B3,2Sb.90 Add : Co�pro�isr penalty �.����������������������������������� 600.00 TOTil. AMOUNT DUE AND aJ..LECTIBLE ............................. P_hl~8S6. '30_ In a letter, dated March 19, 19t3 7' petitioner~ disp�Jted the .:J.bove�-�qt.wted assessment on th~: gr�ounds that: (1) promissory notes issued by SOT~ pl�i.ot� to Octeber 15, 1384 or sp~cific~ll) in 1 'J8:3, wer�e non-�neyot iable and, then::�fr.n�p, not sub j e c t t o doc �J mental"" y stamp t C\ v ; ,;~ n d ( 2) salE? of secur�itif'!s under� Agn?ement is not subject to DST. Instead of this ""n� i. \: ten respondent sent petitioner an assessment lettet�, dat'd 1987, which wa.s r�eceived by <I 1' t'JB7. The a r�r~I':",�atiDn oF t h e .i.. 32 ��

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4784 - 3- On June 23, 1987, as a reply to the assessment letter, petitioner clarified that his answer was contained in his previous letter of March 19, 1987. Pursuant to the Compromise Agreement ent et~ed into on llpr i 1 8, 1988, by and betweE'n B. A. P. and the former Commissioner of Internal Revenue Bienvenido A. Tan, petitioner compromised on August 5, 1988 ( p. 30, BIR the aforementioned assessments by paying the amount of P541,743.23 as full sett 1 ement of said assess!lllents <E><h. "4", Respondent; p. 21, Ibid.) The amount of P641, 743. 23 was co� put ed ( p. 146, BIR records) by adding the total amount of promissory notes issued during the year 1'383, and the bJtal amount of securities sold during the same year. Thl:: c:ono;tituted the compt�ur::.se ba�;e, wh1ch if d1vtdl?d b'; 200, ,,nc! then muP: ipl ied by PO. 0325 ~-10uld gi�n:; 1. 11f! compromised amount. Thus: Promissory notes issued p 925,385,255.00 during the year 1983 3,022,~()3,857.53 Add: Securities sold under ~!t2t.}~'?, 11<:~:"..53 repurchase agreement Cumpr�omise base Compt-omise Base 200 >c PO. 0325 = P3 7 949,189, 112.G3 200 c o ,., p r� o m i s e d a m o 11 n t p ;�-t 1 d '�' n d e ,.. P. D. No. C3252171 E~nd C. n. ~�lo. 33

DECISION -- C.T.A. Case No. 4764 4 -- B14lt57384 both dated March 31, 1 '388. Despitt> availment of th� i t s t : i l l J~ece i ved fl~om ,~espondent a l e t t e r demanding payment of the amotmt of P3,2B7,399.20 as stamp ta.>c on SE'ClWlties sold repurchase agreement in 1983. Details of 1983 De f 1 c i e n c y Doc u men t a r: y S t am p I.Sl...:�~ On Sale of Secur1t1es Under Repurchase noreement S P. c 11 ~- i t i e s S o 1d D IJ t" i n g t h e Y e a r� P3,o:~.oo3,057.53 Documentary Sta~p Tax Due Thereon - P3,022,803,857.63 >I PO. 25 p 3.,778,604.82 P200.00 Less: Part1al Payment - P3,022,8Q? 1 857.63 )!, P0.0325 .~~ S 1 , 2 (' 5 � G2_ P200.00 pet 1 !; i:::ner� 1 n for�med ,-- e> s p�:~ nd e nt assessment to be colle=ted was already the subject of a compru~1~e. As the was c01-~e referred to respondent's App1o>lla.te Div~sion, petitioner filed with this office u n J u1� ~ 17' 34

DECISION - C.T.R. Case No. 4784 - 5- Protest to the reassessment was den1ed by respondent 1n a letter, dated January 29, 1992, which 1�1as by pet.it1onet� on Mat-ch 11, 19'32. Then on M.:wch 1 E., 1992, a was filed by petitionet-. However, although this letter, as borne by the records, came into the hands of the B. I. R. , no been by to the time the instant petition for- ,.. ev i ew was flied with this Co t.o-t on Apri 1 1 o, 1992. Responden~. � s was filed on J�.tne 1 '3' 1992 al1eging as special and c' e f r: i! s e s th�� -following: 1. The 1 'JEW BIR-BAP DST A g ,- e �? me n t covers only t a H �I s s e s s me r� �: " d o c �.1 me P t i< r� y ~-tamp t a>t a 11 t �; p !.:' '� rn- 0 mi :;. s 0 t" y n 0 t E' ::;:, i S S '.II? d t o fJ c �. ~� b e ��� -1C-:.,�' 1 '30l~; 2. Pet i t i o n e t"' s sa 1 e o f s E" c �.p�� 1 t 1 e s u r1 d !? r a Rep�.n�c~1ase Agr-eement is not inc~�.1ded or� p1 acPd l��~i thin the .::.cope of the Cc�mp���omJ ';!~ A ;; ��� e e me n t � T h e 1 a vtt i s s p e c i f i L' 1. ; 1 t~; t t he s �.1 b j e c t o f a c o mp r�� om i s e c om pt� i s e -:: on 1 �r' t h c :;. e matters which are definit~ly st2t~d th~rein !Art1cle 2036, New C1vil Code>; 3 .. k n o H i n g f u 1 1 ~� th.:d. documentary stamp taMes on sales of ::. ' c 'J )" i t i I? s �,lndet� Rep�.n-chase Agreement were not ;..;:;trlln thE' ;,;c'.'PC of th? DJR�P{:)P DST Ct;'"pt~omisE� r's'"C'P.ment:, iP' 1'1C<:'t1 the t�c:.cpundP.nt to ent.Pl' 'll�to ,,, com pl- om 1 -. P set t 1 r "�;:� n t t. h P ~-e :� f. A con;�. r� o ~ i s e in ~-~~~ict: ther-e is a mi::.t.3t<e, ft�aud, violence, inti~�ida"'.ion, unc~��E' influE.>nce ot- r;t}t;.:i'.;y of c' o c u '~ �? n t "� rn a }' b E' ,.. E' !'� c i n c:l e d o ,- i , : v ;;~ l i d <:1 t f' cl 35

DECISION C.T.n. Ca~e No. 4784 . �. - <Article 2038 in relation to ~:kt i c 1 E' :. 330 of th~ New Civil Codel; and 4. The ass~ssment is in acco,--dance with law and regulation. Iss �.H? s having joined, pet i t i :n1 c ~- pt-esented and evidence to and/or s uppot�t its case. petitioner reste~ i t s case, pt� e sent e>d and only documE"ntary evidence which we>re> of the> BIR No testimonial evidence> was offered by respondent. are The two iSS\IE'S that confront us in this case, both pm�el y le>gal. F i t� s t i s sue - i s whet her� o1� not the 1� e assess a e nt., imposing DST on sec tn- it i e s under repurchase is by the compromisE' 1988. The second issue deals on whether or not subject reassess~ent has lPgal basis. Respondent thE' 1 '-'� nut covered by the 1983 BIR-BAP on 1 y t a>: assessment involving docum~ntary pr� :.or� .__ o IJc t-. o b_!:_C_ _j_~, 1984 .. Tht- best- evidPncE' of avE �~:n en~ 15 the Co m>=' :� o mi s e n;.��eement TRut.::;r -r 1~ r� r� f_, l q ..:t t c t"' r�� c f r. ,....~ Prj t: o 24 ::a �� t. ~l e B e::t n ~ :1 ~:-: ~~ !7' L ~.. �� c 1� thp Dr.tr'l<Pt"'� 0;::,ociation of the ,-,t,::2p~nr\'?:., ;;:;.:_t '. � . . � h u t�� ;:� b j.' o f f �.!::_ ~. D --�-~.9 m{..~~" CJ '.II i s e i t !:. __ ~-'.:..s:n ":~.:2.: 1 S t ,-,. Jl1J2.._ T.;:; ~ ( DS T ) -~~;)_?i...f" �,; <:> ~-e n t r� e 1 <::~ t i ,:u;.;.____ !. :J ___ljg ::'--- issued t.o 36

DECISlON - C.T.A. Case No. ~784 - 7- October 15, 1984, under the following terms and conditions.: I. COMPPOMI SE RATE: I I. SCOPE: The above-mentioned Documentary Stamp Tax Cr.1mprom.ise contemplates and incl�.1des: A. All years with assessments ar-:d pre- assessment notices; B. Yeal~s wh~n~e documentary sta�p tax on promissory notes issued non-negotiable 15, 1'384 were paid under priot� to October~ protest; C. Years where a case is presently with the Court of Tax Appeals; and D. All open yea,~s, up to Octobel~ 14, 1984, at the option of the Bank. Ill. COMPROMISE BASE: XXX IV. COMPROMISE COMPUTATION: XXX V. MODE OF PAYMENT: XXX VI. EXCLUSIONS: Othel~ issues raised in the tax assessments or which may be raised for open and assessed/pre-assessed years respectively, not involving documentary '3tamp tax on alL types of pr�orntssu1�y nr;tes issued prior to October 15, 1984 arc not Included tn, nor affected by this compr~omise. xxx" <pp. 1�.-17, CTA records; underscoring supplied> 37

DECISION ~ C.T.A. Case Nu. 4784 -8- We con c �.n- w i t h respondent�s contention. The above- q�.1ot ed provisions of the Compt~om is e Agn?ement it covers only DST assessment on all types of pr�omissOl")" notes to Oct abet- 15, 1984. It do e s n o t co vel' DST assessment on securities sold r.1nder a repurchase agreement and all other documentary stamp ta>< a.�:;sessment s. Petitioner's averment, that the subject reassFssment imposing DST on SE'ClWities sold under~ a is by the agJ-eement, was based on its erroneous interpretation of Section 2<a> of the Revised Seclwi tie~. Act <Bat as Pambansa Blg. B>, which statPs that: : h �~_j_,;!l_ _....::._i 7l c 1 �_t cl_']_ d >?be" I; lJr��~� �:, of O� paper��:; i 11 d '" ~J ted n t:: s s e f -:Hl '/ p e ,..5o n, ftn-.?-nr.-1<"-l 'JI" nc�:~ 'i' :. n , n c l. a l e n t 1 t y :�~ )-: 1-: s tJ c h ,:l s pt . o ~-:. .J.....::~::l...::.--~-- --: ~J t e ~.:....1 1 u n r:5 �: \" ':"- c or- 1 n g r�ept.n�cha:;~~ agr�cP.ml?~1!:; s >o<x. supplted>. Ba::,.etJ on the above-�qttat ed pt~ 0., i !:� i 0 Tl' p e t i t i o n e r wrongfully equ~tFs " s E' c u ,~ i t i e s " wi t h " p t" D m i ;::. s o l~ y notes". !lf.�nce, p-..,en if the Compt�omi se ;:.peel f icall y '"'P.ntion.:�d thi'\t it only DST as<:.�>Sc.'1!?nts on all ~. / p (' s c f s p !" 0 '11 1 '~ 0 }" }' SE'C:Ut"ltleS .:: ~ I . follow~ng 38

DEClSION C. T. n. C e> s e No. lt 7 iV-f - 9- The Cow-t brushes as1de petitioner's and/ ot�� definiti':ln of the " s e c 1.1 t" 1 t i ~, s � " The a f or~ e ~ �.1 o t e d pl" o v i s i on of the did not the t er�m \-Jhat. has been done by thE' said pl~ovision, was merely to cite example~-, or e enumer~at of sec�.:rities, and one of those given was promis~ory notes. The acceptable definitions are those quetl.ed hereinbelow, stating that: " Sec m~ i t i e s are gene.~ a 1 1 y d e f i ned as written assurances for the return or repayment of money or evidences of indebtedness." <Jarre v. Goldner, 251 I 11. App. 188; Wor~ds and Phrases, Vol. .38, p. 469). The term security has no exactly defined legal definition. Generically, the word has referenc� to written instruments, usu0lly for the paym~nt of money or evidences o~ a debt, and beir�,,g mol-e than a met-e pt-omisr� of the d e b t o r o f .,. g e n e r� a 1 1 i a b i l i t y on h L'LJ2.0:~., b �.t t; h a v i n g a::. co 1 1 at e t� cd t o i t a p 1 edge o f p ,. oDe,.. t y or some additional obligation. Webster defines i t as anything ~iven or QJU?.Ositef~ to secun~ the payment of ._:.debt or� the pet~f';:r-mance of a contt-f\ct, as a bnnd wtth surety, a mortgage, the indorsemen~ of a r e s pons i b 1 e man, or� a p 1 edge. r t i s t h.;< t ~<-lh i c h t�ender�s a matter� sure; an instt��Jmc:�'t which renders certain the performance of a c~ntract." <Storll v. Wanddell, N.Y., 2 Sandf. Ch. 49lf, 507, cit :.�1g ;~ Bouv. Law Diet. , l�9J; E.'Jl�ds and rt n:.? 'i!Z2� \I u 1. 38, p. lt 7 U I' ' r:. n , �..:.i ��� r~ T) D l no~.t:s. F. .,' .- '�' 38

� DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4784 - 10 - wl~ i t t en pr~omise by to pay another therein named or order a fixed sum of money <1t. all events and at a t i me s p e c i f i e d t he~~ e i n o ~~ ;:~t a t i M �? t�Jh i ch must <Clarhe v. Hunter, 83 I 1 1. App. 100; than mer�e prom 1 se to pay, as it has a collateral to such prom1se 1 a pledge of property or some additional obligation. Hence, if the subject Compromise Agreement specifically pr�ov ided, that it would cover� only DST assessments on all types of prom i s so r y not e s, de fin it ely, it ~o-wuld not cover DST assessments on sec u r� it i e s sold under a repurchase agr�eement. It is a well� settled rule that: "A compromise agreement must be strictly int.er�pr�etvd and m!JSt be under�stood as including only ma.ttet�s~eci.fically determined thet-ein o�:� which, by necessary inference from its wording Tlll..lst be dE�f?med included." <Ferrer vs. Ignacio, 39 Phil;. 446; Underscoring supplied) plea f ot~ the cancellation and withdrawal of the subject DST assessment on 1 �y on the that the assessment was com pt~ om i s e d, on account that it lacks legal basis (see p. 13, Petitioner's Memorandum; p. 191, CTA P e t i t 1 o n P t" holds the that only cor"~veyaror:p ef instruments �entioned in Sec:..ions 223 and <now Section!'. 174 and 175> of the Ta>' Code, ar~e 40

...... � DECISION - � �� '.1 C.T.A. Case No. 4784 "� - 11 - �� subject to DST imposed by Section 225 <now Section 17G> .... of the same Code. Conveyances of instruments cover~ed by ... other~ sections of �the Code, such as the in st rwH.�nt s covered by Section 229 (now Section 180>. to DST imposed by Section 225. In other~ wot~ds, only ot~ sale of bonds, de bent ut~e-s, cer~t i ficat es of indebtedness (instruments mentioned in Section 223> and certificate~. of stocks <instrument mentioned in Sect~on 224>, are subject to DST imposed by Section 225. However, transfer or sale of instruments mentioned in Section 229 such as pt~omi s!!:.ory notes, bills of exchange, dt~afts, certificatls of deposit are not subject to DST imposed by Section 225. The docs not uphold p e t i '�� .i u ' � ,. ,. � ~. Respondent's revised reAssessment proper� t '/ basis in Section 225 of the Tax Code, which p1��c�vides: "Section 225. Stamp Tax on S,:d�>s, Agr-eement to Se 1 l, Memor~anda of 5'.:�1es, Deli veri�>!� of Tr-ansfer of Donds, D>.IE' Bills, Cer~t i f i cat. e s of Obligation, or~ Shal� es o~- C !? ~- t i f i c a l e s of Stock. On all salE's Ot' a g r� e ~2 '11 E~ n t s t o �:; e l 1 , o t� memo r� and a o f sa 1 f! s , o .,. d e 1 i v e t- i e :. , cw t t~ an s f e ,~ o f bond s , d u P b i 1 1 s , c F t� t i f i cat e ;:. o f o b 1 i g .:-1 t i on , or- s h a 1�� e s o t" certificates of stock, in any association, company or corporation, or transfer of such securities by assign~ent 1n blank, or by :Jc-1iv�-l"y 1 ot" by any papet-, or~ agrPP.r.cnt, o�- 'nf'mc:t~and'"lt:l Ot" c�tt,,.,.. evidence=� of "t.r-2-T�!::_.f_g_t'' 01~ ~:a:~ l�Jhethc>!�- e n t i t l : n ] the holder� in <'In�,� ~',:J.n!1Pt" to thp benefit of such bonds, duc> bills, cet'tlflcates of obligation ot~ stocl<, 01~ to =� !2 c �.w e the f t1.1 �.n~ e payment of mone-y, o l" f o ,. the 41

DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4784 - 12 - future transfer of any bond, due bills, ..~ certificate of obligation or stock, there shall ' be collected a documentary stamp tax.o( twenty- � five centavos on each two hundred p~sos, or Fractional part thereof, of the oar value qf ~-.......� such bond, due b i l l . cet~tificates of stock ot~ I\ obligation or stock. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx." (Underscoring supplied.> stated in t he abo v e- q �.10 t e d provision, securities is clearly subject to DST at the rate of P0.25 on each P200.00 or fractional part of the par value thereof. It is manifestly for p e t i t i on e 1~ , to insist again that its secm~ities sold under repurchase agreement, ar~ synonymous to "pt~o miss ot~y notes" Qentioned in Section 229. The Court has previously expla1ned that secs..wi ties from promissory notes. Al t!IO\Jgh as 1--wovided in the Revised Act, that [1 0 t (.' s' :i -!;� doer not fo11o\-.J t h at: p ,- o m i :;. :.:. o ,.. 'l r ~ o t P ::. :inc l!.td c Hence, .if S"'ct::.on 229 Spf.'cifit�~11�r P'"' o v 1 de::-. note�=�, this h: 11 not mFan to As apt 1 y po..1t by 1- e r, p o n d e J"' t , p e t i t 1 o THn�� � s sa1e of agreement, rightf~lly falls under Section 225, which impDses DST not on the issuance, on the s<'lle Ot" ment1oned +::�.et�t::r:ir:., (~r1ons :. E.-' c '.n�- i t i f? s � SE'Ct.lO" -! p..,--, 17]) of Tal>< C C1.": 42

n~c rs I mJ t,7f3l; C. -r. A. C<:~se l'~�l. 13 - in of "DPI ramily B~nk YS. ClR ~nd Court of TaK Appealr,", Cfl-G.P. SP .. wi t h (l �.d. y ,;~n doubt, having thp c h at�� a c !-. e ,.. of in�.�po.t.m!:?nt. c� I? C 1.! I" i t. :i I? !> ' T Bil c:. 2-nd CB�-B:i ll s C.3nno\: be c o n '� i d e t" fl Lf B ':� m r t"l? pt" D T!1 i ':'� ;,. 0 ,. 'I notr.?s. In fact, the p>� i mB:--.; funct..ion of CB�-Blll s .:u.: d T - B i 1 1 s �.l i f f ~:� r en t t: ''�" ~. of inst:t���Jments c \' i cl c n r: i n g tjpbl;::: iP Ot"dinBI"Y tt�an:.-.:<ctions bPt.!H?E'Tl i n d .i �.; i cJ '.1 t't I ~. Ukt.icle 1 '3, U.S. Reg. Nc. 71, D '.' p ;:., r t r {:' 11 l , ;: :i t: c d 1..': ~~ �1 t (' d ~.J a ~. �: n n a 1 I n t: ~, .... n t"l. 1 l?p-.�pp�.:P. Codr, p. 77C; "'' ir:.f:'d I.lt:tt:�.tmcnt._,,., StDrnp T ,., ., P P g �.t 1 a t i on , D f' p ,, ,.. I; r� r �., ! o f r i n ,:, 1 'c E ~ S ~- p ':: e rn b e� �� 1 C, 1 ?2 4 ; [ .u: >< 11 , 0. G. 1 .::, p. 2.~~5, 2: ) . I n ::. t r� �.t men t. s r� �: i '~' r,� n 1::.� i n g dt?!Jt�~. :n t ,.. an.,, act i on s 1 �., th�.' s u: f:l.~.::~~c:...c..L ___ :'-~:.l:..!::..:.: __II'L'1 ~ �' ' _. r=:..t:_:..~~-1 ~~g.~.!.s.rt___ T: J:' :~: 1__;� l :r~ ~~2L.0J ..:~.t. U_l_t_: ~, J_y____ J t~ ':'.Ill... g u_y_t:.!._~..!.2.f.l!.!L'2.l-..5_g'_'=-:..\,!. r� .i !~'~' ' f 1 J. t ar-e i s. ::. �.r e d b '/ a �.1 tho'� i t y of t. he C en-~. r r:1 l D :.Hll:. Con ::. r-.� q �.t !.? n t J :; , t h e 1 ::. s �.t uP c.: e t:1 !'1 d t h �' ::" �.: b "� e q �.l e n t. t:..::..i..!..!..!..:,fur __r;:..::.:.~:!. sal� ::f govcl�nment. =.P._~:..~�itie:;, ~. t. amQ_t: C:..:t e__::,_ 173, ".' :.� .::;mt~~ldf?d by P.D. Nl 1T �...~!' i r:-_: h ' r: c ~-- i (' ; l 1 7 3 � s t. iJ pI ~J T L~ )~ �? ::. '. q . c ~:.t ~) .: n: [',. \ t~ ~:." "t .. '~. t .. m ! : p r t \. ~:.. r:~ n d p .- ... ~ r� t <.<~c�~r�pl. ;1nr�u::., a s g e, 1 p :� ; ! : '� of t'�e ;�lJ~ ~ 9�'! 1 (111, ght !> l" rw( :.IE'l' t .. ir,c:drc'!; thr��t�tu, t. ' , r ,- \" s h '" 1 ~ ~' p .cn1d pa1d fo~--, } F: ',' :. P d 1 co}};;;�c::tcd ~ . rJ t. 1 fl: ,_.. f.:' ~- p p ~ the c f.II",- E' "� [J ( , J' , i - ;.: rJ ("j ":) ~: l. f "' r; ~�1 t: ;_, ~�� '/ ~� :. a m t t:\ H �2 !:� pt�e ~�Lt~� i ~� ~:~; : r, ,..t: h c r t, J ; r.:vs 1 n �., �:. e c !; i u n <:� t: f t: hi c� ...,.. ! l. ~ ' , ' ~.. h r p f' ,. !� c: r1 , o:; 1 t: '111':;' -1 .. .: : � I~ 'f _, c (= ' . r:' t i n y f)' .. l \ r.� l' f:' i t 43

DEC [SION -- C.T.A. Case No. 4784 - 14 - othFr party thereto who 1s not exempt shall be the one directly liable for the tax.� <Underscoring supplied) It is not l1kewise correct for petitioner to state that the instant reassessment has no factual basis. A careful review of the computation of subject reassessment reveals, that the figure of P3,022,803,857.63 denominated as "securities ~-old dtwing the year~", was the same figure supplied or given by petitioner to respondent during the Compromise Agreement. This amount of sale of securities under a repurchase agreement, was properly subjected to .- DST at the r~ate of P0.25 on each P200. 00 or~ Section 225 of thP Ta)( Code. The r~esul t was P3,778,604.82 which represents the amount of DST due on the aforesaid sale of SPcurities. However, a m' ' �.: n t. u f s <.1 1 E' o f s e c �.t ,~ i t. i e s W a r, !" ,- � � 0 T1 E' 0 '.1 5 1 'y' includpd in the Com p )''om i s E:' P g r� e emf:' n t , at -~. "e of PO. 032::::-� on l?i:lCh P200.00 par��t I the ,~e su 1 t i ng am o�.1nt of considered as p0rtial paynn:-nt, and the s<:lme vi:<':� ded�.tct ed P3,77B,E.04.82 leaving the nf:"t of P3,287,3'39.20 as thl? amount of DST still d I.! E' and callectible from petitioner. F 1 r: a 1 1 'l, the Co�.wt consider-s as following ttH:' 44 ---- ~-------

DC:CfSION C.T.n. C~~e No. ~784 -- 15 - "AssessmE'nts at�e pr i f!l.:"l facie and made in good faith. Th~ taxpayer has the d u t y D f p t" o v i n g 1n t.he absence of pt�oof o f an �,� i ~- ,. P g �.t 1 iEl ,. i t i e s of official duties an assess~ent Wlll not be dist�.wbed. All r-n�esumptions al" e i n r avo,- of tax assessments (Interprovincial Auto bus Co., Inc. v. Collector, 98 Phil. 290; Cecilia Teodoro Dayrit v. Hon. Fernando Cruz and Co��issioner, L-39910, s~pt. 2G, 1988; Boni�facia Sy Po v. CTA and Co��issioner, G.R. No. 01446, Aug. 18, 1988). e n-ot" i n t h e aso:.essment Hill j l.l;; t if y jurlicial a f f i ~- man c e of said '"q::. s t! s s me rJ t <.Delta Motors Co. v. Commis~iuncr, CTR Case WHE11EFORE, �� r DISMISSED. f'ICCORDJNGLY, ::1.: �..f �. !j {' ORDERED to PAY t.o i �. of wi t.ho�.:t c:.' '.' E' on ~�c�fic1ency SO OHDEP.ED. / / 45 I

DIT [!::)I 0!\1 - C. T. n. Case N1. tt78'� -- 1 b - t .4 .� / WE CONCUR: CERTI.IIcn-riOf'-..1 I ll Cl'C b:; dec i '~ i n1� s �. ; ~l Sec~; ion ~fter due con~u!tat1on TaH Appc.;3l.s c ') f t !: c 0 .... "_; t i t ~J ~: j 0 !i .. cnunn J '.tt';: r n;:!pr. ~ .... 46