Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.

Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 125355, [March 30, 2000], 385 PHIL 875-886)

FACTS:
Commonwealth Management and Services Corporation (COMASERCO) is a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It is an affiliate of Philippine American
Life Insurance Co. (Philamlife), organized by the latter to perform collection, consultative and other
technical services, including functioning as an internal auditor of Philamlife and its other affiliates.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued an assessment to private respondent COMASERCO
for deficiency value-added tax (VAT) amounting to P351,851.01, for taxable year 1988.
COMASERCO filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for review contesting the
Commissioner's assessment. COMASERCO asserted that the services it rendered to Philamlife and
its affiliates were on a "no-profit, reimbursement-of-cost-only" basis, thus they were not engaged in
business. In fact, it did not generate profit but suffered a net loss in taxable year 1988.
COMASERCO averred that since it was not engaged in business, it was not liable to pay VAT. The
Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Tax
Appeals. After due proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing that of the
Court of Tax Appeals. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed with the Supreme Court a
petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

whether COMASERCO was engaged in the sale of services, and thus liable to pay VAT thereon|||

HELD:
The Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Contrary to
COMASERCO's contention, Sec. 105 of the NIRC 1997 clarifies that even a non-stock, non-profit
organization or government entity is liable to pay VAT on the sale of goods or services. VAT is a tax
on transactions, imposed at every stage of the distribution process on the sale, barter, exchange of
goods or property, and on the performance of services, even in the absence of profit attributable
thereto. There was no merit to respondent's contention that the Court of Appeals' decision declaring
the COMASERCO as not engaged in business and not liable for the payment of fixed and
percentage taxes, binds petitioner. The issue in the appellate court is different from the present case,
which involves COMASERCO's liability for VAT. Every person who sells, barters, or exchanges
goods and services, in the course of trade or business, as defined by law, is subject to VAT. The
Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Court of Tax
Appeals.

It was held by the Supreme Court that this case CLARIFIES THAT EVEN A NON-STOCK, NON-
PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS LIABLE TO PAY VAT ON THE
SALE OF GOODS OR SERVICES. On May 28, 1994, Congress enacted Republic Act No.
7716, the Expanded VAT Law (EVAT), amending among other sections, Section 99 of the Tax
Code. On January 1, 1998, RA 8424 the NIRC 1997, took effect. Contrary to COMASERCO's
contention the amended law clarifies that even a non-stock, non-profit, organization or
government entity, is liable to pay VAT on the sale of goods or services. VAT is a tax on
transactions, imposed at every stage of the distribution process on the sale, barter, exchange of
goods or property, and on the performance of services, even in the absence of profit attributable
thereto. The term "in the course of trade or business" requires the regular conduct or pursuit of a
commercial or an economic activity, regardless of whether or not the entity is profit-oriented. The
definition of the term "in the course of trade or business" incorporated in the present law applies to
all transactions even to those made prior to its enactment. EO 273 stated that any person who, in the
course of trade or business, sells, barters or exchanges goods and services, was already liable to pay
VAT. The present law merely stresses that even a nonstock, nonprofit organization or government
entity is liable to pay VAT for the sale of goods and services. Section 108 of the NIRC 1997 defines
the phrase "sale of services" as the "performance of all kinds of services for others for a fee,
remuneration or consideration." It includes "the supply of technical advice, assistance or services
rendered in connection with technical management or administration of any scientific, industrial or
commercial undertaking or project."|||

Also, that BIR RULING NO. 010-98; EMPHASIZED THAT AS LONG AS THE ENTITY
PROVIDES SERVICE FOR A FEE, REMUNERATION OR CONSIDERATION, THEN THE
SERVICE RENDERED IS SUBJECT TO VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT). On February 5, 1998,
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued BIR RULING emphasizing that a domestic
corporation that provided technical, research, management and technical assistance to its affiliated
companies and received payments on a reimbursement-of-cost basis, without any intention of
realizing profit, was subject to VAT on services rendered. In fact, even if such corporation was
organized without any intention of realizing profit, any income or profit generated by the entity in
the conduct of its activities was subject to income tax. Hence, it is immaterial whether the primary
purpose of a corporation indicates that it receives payments for services rendered to its affiliates on
a reimbursement-on-cost basis only, without realizing profit, for purposes of determining liability
for VAT on services rendered. As long as the entity provides service for a fee, remuneration or
consideration, then the service rendered is subject to VAT.|||

For purposes of TAXES; EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT THEREOF CONSTRUED

STRICTLY AGAINST THE GRANTEE AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. It is a rule that because taxes are the
lifeblood of the nation, statutes that allow exemptions are construed strictly against the grantee and
liberally in favor of the government. Otherwise stated, any exemption from the payment of a tax
must be clearly stated in the language of the law; it cannot be merely implied therefrom. In the case
of VAT, Section 109, RA 8424 clearly enumerates the transactions exempted from VAT. The
services rendered by COMASERCO do not fall within the exemptions.|||

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Magsaysay Lines, Inc.,

G.R. No. 146984, [July 28, 2006], 529 PHIL 64-77
FACTS:
Pursuant to a government program of privatization, The NDC decided to sell in one lot its NMC
shares and five (5) of its ships, which are 3,700 DWT Tween-Decker, "Kloeckner" type vessels. 1
The vessels were constructed for the NDC between 1981 and 1984, then initially leased to Luzon
Stevedoring Company, also its wholly-owned subsidiary. Subsequently, the vessels were transferred
and leased, on a bareboat basis, to the NMC. 2 The NMC shares and the vessels were offered for
public bidding. Among the stipulated terms and conditions for the public auction was that the
winning bidder was to pay "a value added tax of 10% on the value of the vessels." 3 On 3 June 1988,
private respondent Magsaysay Lines, Inc. (Magsaysay Lines) offered to buy the shares and the
vessels for P168,000,000.00. The bid was made by Magsaysay Lines, purportedly for a new
company still to be formed composed of itself and was approved by the Committee on Privatization,
and a Notice of Award dated 1 July 1988 was issued to Magsaysay Lines who in turn was assessed
of VAT through VAT Ruling No. 568-88 dated 14 December 1988 from the BIR, holding that the
sale of the vessels was subject to the 10% VAT. The ruling cited the fact that NDC was a VAT-
registered enterprise, and thus its "transactions incident to its normal VAT registered activity of
leasing out personal property including sale of its own assets that are movable, tangible objects
which are appropriable or transferable are subject to the 10% [VAT].
CTA ruled that the sale of a vessel was an "isolated transaction," not done in the ordinary course
of NDCs business, and was thus not subject to VAT, which under Section 99 of the Tax Code, was
applied only to sales in the course of trade or business.

The CTA further held that - the sale of the vessels could not be "deemed sale," and thus subject to
VAT, as the transaction did not fall under the enumeration of transactions deemed sale
as listed either in Section 100(b) of the Tax Code, or Section 4 of R.R. No. 5-87.

Finally, the CTA ruled that any case of doubt should be resolved in favor of private respondents
since Section 99 of the Tax Code which implemented VAT is not an exemption provision, but a
classification provision which warranted the resolution of doubts in favor of the taxpayer. Hence
CIR appealed the CTA Decision.

ISSUE:
Whether the sale by the National Development Company (NDC) of five (5) of its vessels to the
private respondents is subject to value-added tax (VAT) under the National Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (Tax Code) then prevailing at the time of the sale. The facts are culled primarily from the
ruling of the CTA.

HELD:
No. NOT SUBJECT TO VAT. VAT is ultimately a tax on consumption, even though it is assessed
on many levels of transactions on the basis of a fixed percentage. It is the end user of consumer
goods or services which ultimately shoulders the tax, as the liability therefrom is passed on to the
end users by the providers of these goods or services who in turn may credit their own VAT liability
(or input VAT) from the VAT payments they receive from the final consumer (or output VAT). The
final purchase by the end consumer represents the final link in a production chain that itself
involves several transactions and several acts of consumption.

The VAT system assures fiscal adequacy through the collection of taxes on every level of
consumption, yet assuages the manufacturers or providers of goods and services by enabling them
to pass on their respective VAT liabilities to the next link of the chain until finally the end consumer
shoulders the entire tax liability. Yet VAT is not a singular-minded tax on every transactional level.
Its assessment bears direct relevance to the taxpayers role or link in the production chain.

Hence, as affirmed by Section 99 of the Tax Code and its subsequent incarnations, the tax is levied
only on the sale, barter or exchange of goods or services by persons who engage in such activities,
in the course of trade or business. These transactions outside the course of trade or
business - may invariably contribute to the production chain, but they do so only as a matter of -
accident or incident. As the sales of goods or services - do not occur within the course of trade or
business, the providers of such goods or services - would hardly, if at all, have the opportunity to
appropriately credit any VAT liability - as against their own accumulated VAT collections since the
accumulation of output VAT - arises in the first place only through the ordinary course of trade or
business.

That the sale of the vessels was not in the ordinary course of trade or business of NDC was
appreciated by both the CTA and the Court of Appeals, the latter doing so even in its first decision
which it eventually reconsidered.

We cite with approval the CTAs explanation on this point: In Imperial v. Collector of
Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7924, September 30, 1955 (97 Phil. 992), the term "carrying
on business" does not mean the performance of a single disconnected act, but means
conducting, prosecuting and continuing business by performing progressively all the acts normally
incident thereof; while "doing business" conveys the idea of business being done, not from
time to time, but all the time. "Course of business" is what is usually done in the management
of trade or business

Court explained that "course of business" or "doing business" connotes regularity of activity.
In the instant case, the sale was an isolated transaction. The sale which was involuntary and made
pursuant to the declared policy of Government for privatization could no longer be repeated or
carried on with regularity.

It should be emphasized that - the normal VAT-registered activity of NDC is leasing personal
property. This finding is confirmed by the Revised Charter22 of the NDC which bears no indication
that the NDC was created for the primary purpose of selling real property. The conclusion that - the
sale was not in the course of trade or business, which the CIR does not dispute before this Court,
should have definitively settled the matter.

Any sale, barter or exchange of goods or services not in the course of trade or business is
not subject to VAT. Accordingly, the Court rules that - given the undisputed finding that the
transaction in question was not made in the course of trade or business of the seller, NDC that is,
the sale is not subject to VAT pursuant to Section 99 of the Tax Code, no matter how the said sale
may hew to those transactions deemed sale as defined under Section 100. Hence, Petition Denied.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines, Inc.,

G.R. No. 178697, [November 17, 2010], 649 PHIL 519-537

FACTS:
Sony Philippines was ordered examined for the period 1997 and unverified prior years a
preliminary assessment for 1997 deficiency taxes and penalties was issued by the CIR which Sony
protested. Thereafter, acting on the protest, the CIR issued final assessment notices, the formal letter
of demand and the details of discrepancies as indicated in the Letter of Authority. The audit yielded
assessments against Sony Philippines for deficiency VAT and FWT, viz: (1) late remittance of Final
Withholding Tax on royalties for the period January to March 1998 and (2) deficiency VAT on
reimbursable received by Sony Philippines from its offshore affiliate, Sony International Singapore.

ISSUES:
(1) Is Petitioner liable for deficiency Value Added Tax?
(2) Was the investigation of its 1998 Final Withholding Tax return valid?

HELD:
(1) NO. Sony Philippines did in fact incur expenses supported by valid VAT invoices when it paid
for certain advertising costs. This is sufficient to accord it the benefit of input VAT credits and
where the money came from to satisfy said advertising billings is another matter but does not alter
the VAT effect. In the same way, Sony Philippines can not be deemed to have received the
reimbursable as a fee for a VAT-taxable activity. The reimbursable was couched as an aid for Sony
Philippines by SIS in view of the companys dire or adverse economic conditions. More
importantly, the absence of a sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties supports the non-VAT
nature of the reimbursement. This was distinguished from the CIR VS CA case where the
COMASERCO case states that even if there was similarly a reimbursement-on-cost arrangement
between affiliates, there was in fact an underlying service. Here, the advertising services were
rendered in favor of Sony Philippines not SIS.
(2) NO. A Letter of Authority should cover a taxable period not exceeding one year and to
indicate that it covers unverified prior years should be enough to invalidate it. In addition, even
if the Final Withholding Tax was covered by Sony Philippines fiscal year ending March 1998,
the same fell outside of the period 1997 and was thus not validly covered by the Letter of
Authority.

Silicon Phil., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

G.R. No. 172378, [January 17, 2011], 654 PHIL 492-510
FACTS:
Silicon Philippines, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. It is registered with the BIR das a VAT-taxpayer and with the BOI as a preferred
pioneer enterprise. Then, on May, 1999, Silicon filed with the CIR an application for credit/refund
of unutilized input VAT for the period of Oct. 1, 1998 to Dec. 31, 1998. Due to the inaction of the
CIR, Silicon, on Dec. 27, 2000, filed a Petition for Review with the CTA Division. Silicon alleged
that the 4th quarter of 1998, it generated and recorded zero-rated export sales paid to Silicon in
acceptable foreign currency and that for the said period, Silicon paid input VAT in the total amount
which have not been applied to any output VAT.

The CIR, on the other hand, raised the defenses that: 1. Silicon did not show that it complied with
the provisions of Sec. 229 of the Tax Code; 2. That claims for refund are construed strictly against
the claimant similar to the nature of exemption from taxes; and that Silicon failed to prove that is
entitled for refund.

The CTA Division granted Silicons claim for refund of unutilized input VAT on capital goods.
However, it denied Silicons claim for credit/refund of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated
export sales. It is because Silicon failed to present an Authority to Print (ATP) from the BIR neither
did it print on its export sales invoices the ATP and the word zero-rated.

Silicon moved for reconsideration claiming that it is not required to secure an ATP since it has a
Permit to Adopt Computerized Accounting Documents such as Sales Invoice and Official Receipts
from the BIR. And that the printing of the word zero-rated on its export sales invoices is not
necessary because all its finished products are exported to its mother company, Intel Corp., a non-
resident corporation and a non-VAT registered entity.

ISSUE:
1. WON Silicon entitled to claim from refund of Input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales.
2. WON a claimant for unutilized input VAT on zero-rated sales is required to present proof that it
has secured an ATP from the BIR prior to the printing of its invoices or receipts.

HELD:
1. NO. There are two types of input VAT credits:
1. A credit/refund of input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales under Sec. 112(A) of the NIRC;
and
2. A credit/refund of input VAT on capital goods pursuant to Sec. 112(B) of the same Code.
To claim for credit/refund of input VAT attributable to zero-rated sales, Sec. 112(A) laid down 4
requisites:
1. The taxpayer must be a VAT-registered;
2. The taxpayer must be engaged in sales which are zero-rated or effectively zero-rated;
3. The claim must be filed within 2 years after the close of the taxable quarter when such sales
were made; and
4. The creditable input tax due or paid must be attributable to such sales, except the transitional
input tax, to the extent that such input tax has not been applied against the output tax.
A. Printing the ATP on the invoices or receipts is not required.

In a case, the SC ruled that ATP need not be reflected or indicated in the invoices or receipts
because there is no law or regulation requiring it.
Thus, failure to print the ATP on the invoices or receipts should not result in the outright denial
of a claim or the invalidation of the invoices or receipts for purposes of claiming a refund.

B. ATP must be secured from the BIR

Sec. 238 of the NIRC expressly requires persons engaged in business to secure an ATP from the
BIR prior to printing invoices or receipts. Failure to do so, makes the person liable under Sec.
264 of the Tax Code.

2. YES. Since ATP is not indicated in the invoices or receipts, the only way to verify whether the
invoices or receipts are duly registered is by requiring the claimant to present its ATP from the BIR.
Without which, the invoices would have no probative value for the purpose of refund. Failure to
print the word zero-rated on the sales invoices is fatal to a claim for refund of
input VAT.

In compliance with Sec. 4.108-1 of RR 7-95, requiring the printing of the word zero-rated on the
invoice covering zero-rate sales is essential as this regulation proceeds from the rulemaking
authority of the Secretary of Finance under Sec. 244 of the NIRC. In this case, Silicon failed to
present its ATP and to print the word zero-rated on its export sales invoices. Thus, the claim for
credit/refund of input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales must be denied.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Co. of Asia, Inc.,

G.R. No. 184823, [October 6, 2010], 646 PHIL 710-732

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a claim of refund/credit of input vat in relation to its zero-rated sales from July 1,
2002 to September 30, 2002. The CTA 2nd Division partially granted respondents claim for
refund/credit. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, insisting that the administrative
and the judicial claims were filed beyond the two-year period to claim a tax refund/credit provided
for under Sections 112(A) and 229 of the NIRC. He reasoned that since the year 2004 was a leap
year, the filing of the claim for tax refund/credit on September 30, 2004 was beyond the two-year
period, which expired on September 29, 2004. He cited as basis Article 13 of the Civil Code, which
provides that when the law speaks of a year, it is equivalent to 365 days. In addition, petitioner
argued that the simultaneous filing of the administrative and the judicial claims contravenes
Sections 112 and 229 of the NIRC. According to the petitioner, a prior filing of an administrative
claim is a condition precedent before a judicial claim can be filed.

The CTA denied the MPR thus the case was elevated to the CTA En Banc for review. The decision
was affirmed. Thus the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Respondent contends that the non-observance of the 120-day period given to the CIR to act on the
claim for tax refund/credit in Section 112(D) is not fatal because what is important is that both
claims are filed within the two-year prescriptive period. In support thereof, respondent
cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. [130 Phil 12
(1968)] where it was ruled that if the CIR takes time in deciding the claim, and the period of two
years is about to end, the suit or proceeding must be started in the CTA before the end of the two-
year period without awaiting the decision of the CIR.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the claim for refund was filed within the prescribed period
2. Whether or not the simultaneous filing of the administrative and the judicial claims contravenes
Section 229 of the NIRC, which requires the prior filing of an administrative claim, and violates the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

HELD:
1. Yes. As ruled in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao
Corporation (G.R. No. 172129, September 12, 2008), the two-year period should be
reckoned from the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc (G.R. No.

162155, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 436), we said that as between the Civil Code, which
provides that a year is equivalent to 365 days, and the Administrative Code of 1987, which states
that a year is composed of 12 calendar months, it is the latter that must prevail being the more
recent law, following the legal maxim, Lex posteriori derogat priori.
Thus, applying this to the present case, the two-year period to file a claim for tax refund/credit for
the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002 expired on September 30, 2004. Hence, respondents
administrative claim was timely filed.

2. Yes. We find the filing of the judicial claim with the CTA premature.
Section 112(D) of the NIRC clearly provides that the CIR has 120 days, from the date of the
submission of the complete documents in support of the application [for tax refund/credit], within
which to grant or deny the claim. In case of full or partial denial by the CIR, the taxpayers recourse
is to file an appeal before the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the decision of the CIR. However,
if after the 120-day period the CIR fails to act on the application for tax refund/credit, the remedy of
the taxpayer is to appeal the inaction of the CIR to CTA within 30 days.
Subsection (A) of Section 112 of the NIRC states that any VAT-registered person, whose sales are
zero-rated or effectively zero-rated may, within two 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. The
phrase within two (2) years x x x apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund refers
to applications for refund/credit filed with the CIR and not to appeals made to the CTA.

The case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Victorias Milling, Co., Inc. is

inapplicable as the tax provision involved in that case is Section 306, now Section 229 of the NIRC.
Section 229 does not apply to refunds/credits of input VAT.

The premature filing of respondents claim for refund/credit of input VAT before the CTA warrants a
dismissal inasmuch as no jurisdiction was acquired by the CTA.

The doctrines of this case would be:

- The CIR has 120 days, from the date of the submission of the complete documents within which
to grant or deny the claim for refund/credit of input vat. In case of full or partial denial by the CIR,
the taxpayers recourse is to file an appeal before the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the
decision of the CIR. However, if after the 120-day period the CIR fails to act on the application for
tax refund/credit, the remedy of the taxpayer is to appeal the inaction of the CIR to CTA within 30
days.
- A taxpayer is entitled to a refund either by authority of a statute expressly granting such right,
privilege, or incentive in his favor, or under the principle of solutio indebiti requiring the
return of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. In both cases, a taxpayer must prove not only his
entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with the procedural due process.
- As between the Civil Code and the Administrative Code of 1987, it is the latter that must prevail
being the more recent law, following the legal maxim, Lex posteriori derogat priori.
- The phrase within two (2) years x x x apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or
refund under Subsection (A) of Section 112 of the NIRC refers to applications for refund/credit
filed with the CIR and not to appeals made to the CTA.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc.,

G.R. No. 183505, [February 26, 2010]

FACTS:
In a number of CTA cases, the BIR sent SM Prime and First Asia a Preliminary Assessment Notice
(PAN) for VAT deficiency on cinema ticket sales for taxable year 2000 (SM), 1999 (First Asia),
2000 (First Asia), 2002 (First Asia), and 2003 (First Asia). SM and First Asia filed for protest but
the BIR just denied them and sent them a Letter of Demand subsequently. All the PANs were
subjected to a Petition for Review filed by SM and First Asia to the CTA.

The CTA First Division ruled that there should only be one business tax applicable to theater and
movie houses, the 30% amusement tax. Hence, the CIR is wrong in collecting VAT from the ticket
sales. CIR appealed the case to the CTA En Banc. The CTA En Banc affirmed the ruling of the
CTA First Division.

ISSUE:
WON the cinema ticket sales are subject to VAT and thus included in the meaning of Sale or
Exchange of Services?

HELD:
NO. When VAT was enacted it replaced the tax on original and subsequent sales tax and percentage
tax on certain services. When the VAT law was implemented, it exempted persons subject to
amusement tax under the NIRC from the coverage of VAT. When the Local Tax Code was repealed
by the Local Government Code of 1991, the local government continued to impose amusement tax
on admission tax on ticket sales. The following amendments to the VAT law have been consistent
that those subject to amusement tax is no liable under VAT. Only lessors or distributors of
cinematographic films are included in the coverage of VAT.

It can be seen from the foregoing that the legislative intent was not to impose VAT on persons
already covered by the amusement tax. To hold otherwise would impose an unreasonable burden on
cinema/theater houses operators and proprietors, who would be paying an additional 10% VAT on
top of the 30% amusement tax.

Sec. 108 of the NIRC provides that, there shall be levied, assessed and collected, a VAT equivalent
to 10% of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services, including the use or lease of
properties. The phrase sale or exchange of services means the performance of all kinds of services
in the Philippines for others for a fee, remuneration or consideration, including those.lessors or
distributors of cinematographic films..and similar services regardless of whether or not the
performance thereof calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties. The phrase
sale or exchange of services shall likewise include: (7) lease of motion picture films, films, tapes
and discs.
A reading of the foregoing provision clearly shows that the enumeration of the sale or exchange of
services subject to VAT is not exhaustive. The words, including, similar services, and shall
likewise include, indicate that the enumeration is by way of example only.