COMMISSIONER vs COMMONWEALTH MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES CORPORATION(COMASERCO)Facts: COMASERCO is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It is analiate of Philippine A!erican "ife Insurance Co. #Phila!life$% organized &y the letter to perfor! collection%consultati'e and other technical ser'ices% including functioning as an internal auditor% of Phila!life and itsother aliates.(he )ureauof Internal Re'enue #)IR$ issuedanassess!ent to pri'ate respondent COMASERCOforde*ciency 'alue+added tax #,A($ a!ounting to P-./%0./.1/% for taxa&le year /200. COMASERCO*ledwiththeCourt of (axAppealsapetitionfor re'iewcontestingtheCo!!issioner3sassess!ent. COMASERCO asserted that the ser'ices it rendered to Phila!life and its aliates% relating tocollections% consultati'e and other technical assistance% including functioning as an internal auditor% wereon a 4no+pro*t% rei!&urse!ent+of+cost+only4 &asis. It a'erred that it was not engaged in the &usiness ofpro'idingser'icestoPhila!lifeand its aliates. COMASERCO a'erred thatsince it was not engaged in&usiness% it was not lia&le to pay ,A(.Court of (ax Appeals + decision in fa'or of the Co!!issioner. CA + re'ersing that of the Court of (ax Appeals% it anchored its decision on the ratiocination in another taxcasein'ol'ingthesa!eparties% whereit washeldthat COMASERCOwasnot lia&letopay*xedandcontractor3s tax for ser'ices rendered to Phila!life and its aliates. (he Court of Appeals% in that case%reasoned that COMASERCO was not engaged in &usiness of pro'iding ser'ices to Phila!life and its aliates.In the sa!e !anner% the Court of Appeals held that COMASERCO was not lia&le to pay ,A( for it was notengaged in the &usiness of selling ser'ices.Co!!issionerof Internal Re'enue*ledwiththisCourtapetitionforre'iewoncertiorari assailingthedecision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner a'ers that to 4engage in &usiness4 and to 4engage in the sale ofser'ices4 aretwodi5erent things. Petitioner !aintainsthat theser'icesrendered&yCOMASERCOtoPhila!life and its aliates% for a fee or consideration% are su&6ect to ,A(. ,A( is a tax on the 'alue added &ythe perfor!ance of the ser'ice. It is i!!aterial whether pro*t is deri'ed fro! rendering the ser'ice.Issue7 whether COMASERCO was engaged in the sale of ser'ices% and thus lia&le to pay ,A( thereon.Ruli!7 8es. Section 22 of the 9ational Internal Re'enue Code of /20:% as a!ended &y Executi'e Order#E.O.$ 9o. ;uly /% ;11; to Septe!&er -1% ;11;. ApplyingSection //= of the /22< 9IRC% respondent has until Octo&er ;.% ;11; within which to *le its Huarterly returnfor its gross sales or receipts IwithJ which it co!plied when it *led its ,A( Muarterly Return on Octo&er ;1% ;11;. In relation to this% the rec?oning of the two+year period pro'ided under Section ;;2 of the /22< 9IRC should start fro! the pay!ent of tax su&6ect clai! for refund. As stated a&o'e% respondent *led its ,A( Return for the taxa&le third Huarter of ;11; on Octo&er ;1% ;11;. (hus% respondent3s ad!inistrati'e and 6udicial clai!s for refund *led on Septe!&er -1% ;11= were *led on ti!e &ecause AIC@I has until Octo&er ;1% ;11= within which to *le its clai! for refund.Issue7 whether respondentEs 6udicial and ad!inistrati'e clai!s for tax refundBcredit were *led within the two+year prescripti'e period pro'ided in Sections //;#A$ and ;;2 of the 9IRCRuli!7 Nnutilized input ,A( !ust &e clai!ed within two years after the close of the taxa&le Huarter when the sales were !ade.(he pi'otal Huestion of when to rec?on the running of the two+year prescripti'e period% howe'er% has already &een resol'ed in Co!!issioner of Internal Re'enue '. Mirant Pag&ilao Corporation%== where we ruledthat Section //;#A$ of the 9IRC is the applica&le pro'ision in deter!ining the start of the two+year period for clai!ing a refundBcredit of unutilized input ,A(% and that Sections ;1=#C$ and ;;2 of the 9IRC are inapplica&le as 4&oth pro'isions apply only to instances of erroneous pay!ent or illegal collection of internalre'enue taxes.4=. Ke explained that7(he a&o'e pro'iso ISection //; #A$ of the 9IRCJ clearly pro'ides in no uncertain ter!s that uutili+e* i,ut VAT ,a-.ets #t #t/e&0ise use* 1#& a- ite&al &eveue ta2 *ue t/e ta2,a-e& .ust 'e clai.e* 0it/i t0# -ea&s &ec3#e* 1. t/e cl#se #1 t/e ta2a'le 4ua&te& 0/e t/e &elevat sales 0e&e .a*e ,e&taii! t# t/e i,ut VAT &e!a&*less #1 0/et/e& sai* ta2 0as ,ai* #& #t% As the CA aptly puts it% al&eit it erroneously applied the aforeHuoted Sec. //; #A$% 4IPJrescripti'e period co!!ences fro! the close of the taxa&le Huarter when the sales were !ade and not fro! the ti!e the input ,A( was paid nor fro! the ti!e the ocial receipt was issued.4 (hus% when a zero+rated ,A( taxpayer pays its input ,A( a year after the pertinent transaction% said taxpayer only has a year to *le a clai! for refund or tax credit of the unutilized credita&le input ,A(. (he rec?oning fra!e would always &e the end of the Huarter when the pertinent sales or transaction was !ade% regardless when the input ,A( was paid. )e that as it !ay% and gi'en that the last credita&le input ,A( due for the period co'ering the progress &illing of Septe!&er :% /22: is the third Huarter of /22: ending on Septe!&er -1% /22:% any clai! for unutilized credita&le input ,A( refund or tax credit for said Huarter prescri&ed two years after Septe!&er -1% /22: or% to &e precise% on Septe!&er -1% /220. ConseHuently% MPCEs clai! for refund or tax credit *led on Dece!&er /1% /222 had already prescri&ed.In any case% no such suit or proceeding shall &e *led after the expiration of two #;$ years fro! the date of pay!ent of the tax or penalty regardless of any super'ening cause that !ay arise after pay!ent7 Pro'ided% howe'er% (hat the Co!!issioner !ay% e'en without a written clai! therefor% refund or credit any tax% where on the face of the return upon which pay!ent was !ade% such pay!ent appears clearly to ha'e &een erroneously paid.9ota&ly% the a&o'e pro'isions also set a two+year prescripti'e period% rec?oned fro! date of pay!ent of the tax or penalty% for the *ling of a clai! of refund or tax credit. 9ota&ly too% '#t/ ,visi#s a,,l- #l- t# istaces #1 e&e#us ,a-.et #& ille!al c#llecti# #1 ite&al &eveue ta2es%Considering the foregoing discussion% it is clea& t/at Sec% 556 (A) #1 t/e NIRC) ,vi*i! a t0#7-ea& ,&esc&i,tive ,e&i#* &ec3#e* 1. t/e cl#se #1 t/e ta2a'le 4ua&te& 0/e t/e &elevat sales #& t&asacti#s 0e&e .a*e ,e&taii! t# t/e c&e*ita'le i,ut VAT) a,,lies t# t/e istat case) a* #t t# t/e #t/e& acti#s 0/ic/ &e1e& t# e&e#us ,a-.et #1 ta2es% #E!phasis supplied.$In 'iew of the foregoing% we *nd that the C(A En Banc erroneously applied Sections //=#A$ and ;;2 of the 9IRC in co!puting the two+year prescripti'e period for clai!ing refundBcredit of unutilized input ,A(. (o &e clear% Section //; of the 9IRC is the pertinent pro'ision for the refundBcredit of input ,A(. (hus% the two+year period should &e rec?oned fro! the close of the taxa&le Huarter when the sales were !ade.Relying on Article /- of the Ci'il Code% which pro'ides that a year is eHui'alent to -:. days% and ta?ing into account the fact that the year ;11= was a leap year% petitioner su&!its that the two+year period to *le a clai! for tax refundB credit for the period >uly /% ;11; to Septe!&er -1% ;11; expired on Septe!&er ;2% ;11=.=0 Ke do not agree.In Co!!issioner of Internal Re'enue '. Pri!etown Property Lroup% Inc.%=2 we said that as &etween the Ci'il Code% which pro'ides that a year is eHui'alent to -:. days% and the Ad!inistrati'e Code of /20une ;11uly ;11:% Philex had until /< August ;11:% the last day of the -1+day period% to *le its 6udicial clai!. T/e CTA E@ /el* t/at 5A Au!ust 6