CTA Case No. 1353 (Decision)

.u;f�lft\LIC OF THE PHILlf'Pl'Nhf COURT <')F TAX AP.PE I.. UEWN CITY 1 � � � t �tc { 1 u 1t u o r. b i> 1 6 L! .

ll ClSIO � C NO. 1 ~ � tt n t rs1 1 tr1 el scat b t ok ,,13 c t s h e tou 4 rt 1 nt & t' 165

� ,, 166 '

- t 1 {) 1 10 ot t - n- 1~. � 1r rt � r� 16 7

: ~~ 1 6 8

ht b oo r �- ob r > ~ ~. � v :� n unti f ourt o't t!rs. .or h call <Jt sp n t 1 ?, ' J)l' 1 tor ~e o~s1d tic h t ai~ � -.t~ r wo l o. f r th~ � p ti ... o� .:r �t-t al cp:f cf t t l~tt r b rwi e, &S �ta h' s t:r ct1e , t~ a in 1;. c 7 () v h h r b1 ou � ohtt!on to ht � rr et tn 1t d s, w 1 ot ur- a lo � v. tIn ~ven e (G �� o. 1 {7 � � 30, by this C �t n the ca t � l"1 0 1 0 d "' d 101"'fi ' al "' v ( No. . t 1966 th r or 4t ev t Ol'i l of: r .... ' f' 169

� 13~3 7 1 ! 11 2 t 1 6 0 0 � ' 0 ~) er�a 1 t r c n- e n n Co rt1 � t 0 ot r 7, 1 y, b a 11 r0 a 1' 1 3 1 y 0 ry nh 1 tr 1 �s 0 1 a t r � t 1- 1 � 0 c th 170

h1 of t ond -n , 11 of th duced by the p �! tion 1M 1- r ot � t t t t lo h dup11c t s nt.ry r et So , 1 f� Tb r 1 o 1 idenc t t t n r x- J. 1 do em 1o do ot but to Nor tal ~� .. n�ariqu � ~*nd to th t " h t or b elz. r or tb 1 00 ont - 0 'U fng liS ode �1tb h llowe o.r it on r 0 . y th t ' lend that tb~ pH.Il.!lC $ o.. urt sw d lo t on 1n Ms et1!llony t.' n cor- e cu o M~ rc l ... r1qu or s� ' ,0 1 to �,1 p ,f onal fil. �; ' �t on d 1 d ..... 1n whil th r 0 �' t 1 �cvy ~~ 171

a ,� D .cts:tO� ...~..,~. 1 )!5 CT , 9 ro 1 r . oo 1 r 1 d l1 roy r Jp � � OQ!i , .eo, o r1'obo.rat 't t � ct he 't 1 do � -""""""'"" 1n t :r a nti hat t. -t 0 tt-' ci�lo . ~ nlianoe s ,is d in th� pro :ts -. f 0 0 - � ~ch 1 a d, lt h lpl l t 0 - i.on of t t'on "� g nd ot Mag nt t 11, f nt e 'ld .r 1 ~� tJ' i'j' t o er' n. h nl'e b li �~ t th~ r at men s e sub t n 1 lly I opinion a , () u� ., I t tl'l c t is of t h hol 8 t t - nc 0 ... ee1sion p 1 tro r a, thout ~ 0 ou c t 0 co t � : l!i 17 2

�1~ 1 u c ' 1 1 t 1 f. :