REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC.,

Petitioner,
C.T.A. CASE NO. 5781

-versusCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.

Promulgated:

0CT 0 3 2002

X----------------------------------------------------~ ~~\

DECISION
This judicial action involves a claim for refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate in the amount of P6,695,518.00 allegedly representing overpaid income tax for
the calendar year ended December 31 , 1996.
The antecedent facts follow.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly registered and organized under
~- ""~>;,

Philippine laws, with principal office located at Old National Road, Barangay Almanza,
Las Pinas, Metro Manila. It is a corporation primarily engaged in the manufacture and
sale of tires and rubber products (Stipulated Fact, Item No. 1, CTA docket, p.3 7) .
On April 15, 1997, petitioner filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue its
Corporation Annual Income Tax Return for calendar year ended December 31 , 1996,

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page2

paying the corresponding tax due thereon in the amount of P 32,803,360.00 (Stipulated
Fact, Item No. 3, CTA docket, p .38), detailed as follows :

Gross Income
Less: Deductions
Taxable Income
Tax Rate
Tax Due
Less: Tax Credits/Payments
Tax Payable

p
p
p

909,504,420.00
269,408,683.00
640,095,737.00
35%
224,033,508.00
191,230,148.00
32!803!360.00

On March 30, 1999, Petitioner filed an Amended Corporation Income Tax Return
(Exhibit B) for the same calendar year ended December 31 , 1996, which reflected a

revised income tax payable in the amount of P 26,107,842.00 (Stipulated Fact, Item No.
4, CTA docket, p.38), computed as follows:

Gross Income
Less: Deductions
Taxable Income
Tax Rate
Tax Due
Less: Tax Credits/Payments
Tax Payable

p
p
p
p

909,504,420.00
269,408,683.00
640,095,737.00
35%
224,033,508.00
197,925,666.00
26!107!842.00

Petitioner explained that the discrepancy in the income tax payable was due to the
fact that it inadvertently recorded its tax credits or payments for 1996 as P191 ,230,148.00
instead ofP197,925,666.00 because it failed to recognize the additional creditable income
tax withheld on its sale of goods for 1996 in the amount of P6,695,518.00. This made

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page3

the petitioner pay mcome tax m the amount of

P32,803 ,360.00 instead of only

P26,107,842.00.
Thus, on April 8, 1999, petitioner, through its tax counsel Sycip, Gorres, Velayo
& Co., filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a claim for refund of excess or overpaid

income tax for the year ended December 31 , 1996 in the amount of P6,695,518.00
(Stipulated Fact, Item No. 5, CTA docket, p.38).
As the claim of petitioner was not immediately acted upon by the respondent, the
former elevated its case to this court by way of petition for review on April 14, 1999 to
forestall the running of the two-year prescriptive period.
In answer to the instant petition, respondent raised the following special and
affirmative defenses, to wit:

1.

"In an action for tax refund, petitioner must show that taxes were
paid erroneously or collected illegally. Failure to sustain this
burden is fatal to the action for refund;

2.

Claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimants since
they are in the nature of exemptions from taxation (Manila Electric
Co. vs. Commissioner oflntemal Revenue, 67 SCRA 351);

3.

Taxes are presumed to have been paid and collected in accordance

with law."

The issues to be resolved in the case at bar, as stipulated by the parties, (CTA
docket, p .39) are as follows:

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page4

1.) Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a claim for refund of the

excess or overpaid income tax for the calendar year ended December 31 ,
1996 in the amount of P 6,695,518.00;

2.) Whether or not said excess or overpaid mcome taxes are

substantiated by documentary evidence;
3.) Whether or not said excess or overpaid income taxes for the
calendar year ended December 31 , 1996 was carried forward to the
succeeding taxable calendar year and applied against its income tax
liability for the said period; and
4.) Whether or not the said excess or overpaid income tax for the
calendar year ended December 31 ,1996 in the amount of P6,695,518.00
was declared as part of the gross income of petitioner.

The legal basis relied upon by petitioner in filing a claim for refund is Section 69
(now Section 76) of the National Internal Revenue Code, which provides:

"Section 69. Final Adjustment Return. Every

corporation
liable to tax under Section 24 shall file a final adjustment return covering
the total net income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of
the quarterly payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to
the total tax due on the entire taxable net income of that year the
corporation shall either:
(a)

Pay the excess tax still due; or

(b)

Be refunded the excess amount paid, as the case may be.

In case the corporation is entitled to a refund of the excess

estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the refundable amount shown on its
final adjustment return mat be credited against the estimated quarterly
income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding year."

In the case at bar, the alleged overpayment of income tax was brought about by
the inadvertence committed by the petitioner in failing to declare the correct amount of

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page5

creditable income taxes withheld in its original income tax return. As can be gleaned
from the records of the case, petitioner for taxable year 1996 declared the following in its
original annual income tax return (Exhibit A):

Taxable Income

P640.095.737.00

Tax Due
Less: Tax Credits
Quarterly Payments
Creditable Tax Withheld
Amount Payable

P224,033 ,508.00
Pl82,277,704.00
8.952,444.00

191,230, 148.00
p 32.803.360.00

On March 30, 1999, petitioner amended its 1996 income tax return (Exhibit B) to
include the amount of P6,695,518.00 as 1996 creditable withholding taxes which were
not declared in the original 1996 return.

After considering all the taxes withheld,

petitioner would only be liable for the lesser income tax of P26, 107,842.00, computed as
follows:
Taxable Income

P640.095.737.00

Tax Due
Less: Tax Credits
Quarterly Payments
Creditable Tax Withheld
Amount Payable

P224,033 ,508.00
Pl82,277,704.00
15,647,962.00

197.925.666.00
p 26.107.842.00

Hence, petitioner allegedly made an overpayment of P 6,695,518.00, which is

being claimed in the instant petition for review, to wit:

1996 Income Tax Paid

Less: Should be payment
1996 Overpaid Income Tax

p 32,803,360.00
26. I 07.842.00
p 6.695.518.00

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page6

However, as oft-cited by this court in a number of similar cases, in order to be

entitled to a refund of excess creditable withholding taxes, the petitioner must prove:

1.) That the claim for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period
provided under Section 204( c) in relation to Section 229 of the Tax Code;
2.) That the fact ofwithholding is established by a copy of a statement duly
issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount
paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and
3). That the income upon which the taxes were withheld were included in the
return of the recipient [Section 2.58.3(B) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-98;
Citibank, NA vs. Court of Appeals and CIR, 280 SCRA 459; ACCRA
Investments Corporation vs. Court ofAppeals, 204 SCRA 957].
That both the administrative and judicial claims for refund were timely filed is
conceded (Stipulated Fact, Item No. 6, CTA Docket p. 38). The written claim for refund
filed with respondent's bureau on April 8, 1999 and the Petition for Review filed with
this court on April 14, 1999 are both within the two-year period reckoned from the date
when petitioner filed its final adjustment return which is April 15, 1997.
As to the second requirement, the independent CPA in his report dated June 29,
2000 noted the following (Exhibit KKKKKKK):

"We noted a difference between the total amount of EWT base as

indicated in the Certificates of Creditable Withholding Tax issued
by the Company 's customers and the total amount of sales for the
said customers as recorded in the Company 's books/ITR (See
Annex 1):
Total Amount ofEWT Base indicated in the Certificate
Total Amount ofSales (for the said customers) per
Books/ ITR
Difference- Sales per Books/ITR is over by

p 1,564, 796,224.00
I. 755.310.214.53

/90.5/3.990.53

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 7

We understand that the above difference amounting to P 190,513,990.53 is

accounted for as follows:
a. Sales recorded in prior years but collected only in 1996 were
subjected to EWT by the customers in 1996 and the corresponding
Certificates of Creditable Withholding taxes therefrom were
received also in 1996 upon collection, thereby resulting in higher
EWT base per Certificates than the amount of sales per books/ITR
in the year 1996;
b. Sales recorded in 1996 but still uncollected as of the end of that
year were not yet subjected to EWT by the customers, thereby
resulting in higher amount of sales per books!JTR than the EWT
base per Certificate.
c. In certain cases, adjustments to the sales (e.g. , sales return,
sales discounts) by way of credit memos are issued only after
collection and receipt of Certificates of Creditable Withholding
Taxes. Thus, the total EWT base indicated in the certificates
corresponding to the same sale is still gross of adjustments while
the total amount of sales recorded in the books is already net of the
aforementioned adjustments, thereby, resulting in higher EWT
base per certificate than the net sales recorded in the books!JTR.
Adjustments to EWT pertaining to the same sale are effected in
sales for the subsequent year. Thus, resulting in lower EWT base
per Certificate than the net sales recorded in the books!JTR ".

While we take note of the foregoing explanation given by the independent auditor
on how the difference between the total amount of EWT base as indicated in the
certificates of creditable withholding tax issued by the company's customers and the total
amount of sales for the said customers as recorded in the company' s books/ITR was
arrived at, this court is still not convinced to grant the refund of the full amount claimed.
The independent CPA failed to reconcile the difference between the amount declared as

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
PageS

income in the income tax return and the total EWT base as appearing in the certificates.
Petitioner likewise failed to present the prior year' s income tax return, which allegedly
included the corresponding income of 1996 taxes withheld. As to the second reason
advanced by the independent CPA, this court found that only those from FB Ladao Sales
and Tire King & Rubber Products have adjustments based on the documents submitted.
The rest have none. Thus, we deem it proper to disallow the following creditable taxes
withheld corresponding to these income, which cannot be verified to have been declared
in the income tax return, to wit:

UNDECLARED

CORRESPONDING

SALES

TAX WITHHELD

WITHHOLDING AGENT

CJ FERNANDEZ ENTRP
DURATRAK CORP

9,135,570.47

91 ,355.70

8,136,308.57

81 ,363.09

FRANCISCO MOTORS

892,706.19

8,927.06

HERSAN TRDG CORP

45,293.61

452.94

10,915,137.12

109,151.37

677,166.47

6,771 .67

23,189.47

231 .89

PETRONCORP
TOYOTA MOTORS
NEW BIAN YEK COMML
YY &CO.

5 828.79

p 29 831 200 69

58.29

29831201

As to the third requirement, the findings of the independent CPA in his report dated
May 25, 2000 (Exhibit IIIIIII) are:

A. Creditable Withholding Taxes Supported by Certificates of Taxes

Withheld Issued for the Year 1995
I. Supported by Original Certificates
2. Supported by Photocopied Certificates with Original Stamp
" Received" by Banks

75,061.63
1,063,717.13

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page9

B. Creditable Withholding Taxes Supported by Original Certificates

p 1,138,778.76
8,485,870.49

C. Creditable Withholding Taxes Supported by Original Certificates

without Stamp "Received" by Banks

3,2 13,035.25

D. Creditable Withholding Taxes Supported by Photocopied

Certificates with Original Stamp "Received" by Banks and
Stamped "Certified True Copy" and Signed by the Banks

2.810.267.74
Pl5,647,952.24

TOTAL - Creditable Withholding Taxes per Schedule

Unaccounted difference-passed due to immateriality

I 0.00

TOTAL - Creditable Withholding Taxes per 1996 lncome Tax Return

Pl5.647.962.24

However, we do not give evidentiary weight to the photocopied certificates of

creditable taxes withheld in the amount of P1 ,063,717.13.

Although they bear the

original stamp "Received" by banks, we are left in quandary as to why petitioner was
able to procure certified true copies of the other certificates but not of these disallowed
documents.

As we are left in doubt, we are constrained to disallow the photocopied

documents that were not compared with their respective originals or were not certified as
true and correct. Considering that the success of a claim for tax refund depends on the
accuracy of the pertinent documents, we frown upon reception of photocopied documents
especially ifthe subject of the inquiry is its very contents.
Other than the said observations, we find the findings of the independent CPA to
be in order, as petitioner was able to present the various certificates of creditable tax
withheld at source to prove the fact of withholding, to wit:
WITHHOLDING
TAX
CUSTOMER

EXHIBIT

PERIOD

PER

COVERED

CERTIFICATE

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 10

C.J. FERNANDEZ ENTERPRISE

COLUMBIAN AUTOCAR CORP

288,371 .61

H7-15

Jan-Mar 96

H7-35

Apr-96

65,123.1 6

H7-36

May-96

158,167.53

H7-37

Jun-96

50,852.75

H7-59

Jul-96

121,471.81

H7-60

Aug-96

119,878.33

H7-61

Sep-96

107,040.76

H7-81

Oct-96

93,854.57

H7-62

Nov-96

138,130.81

H7-80

Dec-96

58,027.49

H7-149

Jan-Dec 96

H7-16

Jan-Mar 96

1 ,200,918.82
12,050.00

COMMERCIAL MOTORS CORP

5,291 .87

H7-38

Apr-Jun 96

5,227.07

H7-151

Jui-Sep 96

9,413 .73

H7-3

Dec-95

H7-1 7

Jan-Mar 96

307,946.57

H7-40

Apr-96

46,516.69

H7-39

May-96

97,815.88

H7-63

Jul-96

94,270.21

H7-64

Aug-96

115,069.54

H7-65

Sep-96

87,015.02

19 ,932 .67

DASHER MKTG CORP

75,061 .63

H7-84

Oct-96

105,308.54

H7-85

Nov-96

140,274.17

H7-86

Dec-96

135,140.63

H7-20

Jan-Feb 96

H7-19

Feb-96

4,146.99

H7-18

Mar-96

151 ,808.84

1,204,418.88

DURATRAK CORP

353,014.15

H7-41

Apr-96

121,478.18

H7-42

May-Jun 96

143,572.99

H7-82/3

Jun-96

73,886.89

H7-122/3

Jui-Sep 96

288,412.96

H7-120/1

Oct-Dec96

488,582.72

H7-21

Jan-96

H7-22

Feb-96

74,688.86

H7-23

Mar-96

100,315.34

H7-93

Apr-96

76,314.33

H7-94

May-96

95,052.35

FB LADAO SALES

90,258.58

1,624,903.72

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page II

H7-95

Jun-96

27,101 .18

H7-87

Jul-96

83,527.09

H7-88

Aug-96

76,849.53

H7-89

Sep-96

82,715.48

H7-90

Oct-96

73,127.28

H7-91

Nov-96

44,607.65

H7-92

Dec-96

28,841 .23

H7-142

Jan-Mar 96

H7-147

Apr-Jun 96

43,724.15

H7-153

Jui-Sep 96

37,971.21

H7-152

Oct-Dec 96

30,223.17

H7-14

Jan-Mar 96

853,398.90

FRANCISCO MOTORS CORP

p

41 ,647.78

153,566.31

HERSAN TRDG CORP

MARCOPPER MINING

50,713.88

H7-43

Apr-96

19,686.23

H7-44

May-96

21,454.66

H7-45

Jun-96

20,224.22

H7-66

Jul-96

17,994.67

H7-67

Aug-96

18,340.56

H7-68

Sep-96

13,519.22

H7-96

Oct-96

17,266.88

H7-97

Nov-96

19,881 .30

H7-98

Dec-96

8,628.68

H7-4

Dec-95

207,710.30
9,738.25

NEW SIAN YEK COMML

p

H7-154

Oct-96

H7-99

Nov-96

49.03

H7-155

Dec-96

110.30

65.97
225.30

NEW CAPITOL TIRE TRDG

p

H7-26

Jan-96

H7-25

Feb-96

93,600.83

H7-24

Mar-96

66,235.94

H7-46

Apr-96

37,484.79

H7-47

May-96

94,667.37

H7-48

Jun-96

38,735.28

H7-69

Jul-96

60,373.28

117,853 .00

H7-70

Aug-96

90,217.86

H7-71

Sep-96

73,853.47

H7-156

Oct-96

95,682.40

H7-157

Nov-96

108,315.47

H7-100/1

Dec-96

26,154.56

903,174.25

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 12

NISSAN MOTOR PHILS INC

P

84,278.42

H7-49

Jan-Mar 96

H7-72

Apr-Jun 96

93,679.63

H7-102

Jui-Sep 96

69,699.28

H7-27

Jan-96

H7-50

Jan-96

1,185.78

H7-29

Feb-96

222 ,427. 24

H7-28

Mar-96

214,949.15

H7-51

Apr-96

258,521 .51

H7-52

May-96

135,720.51

H7-53

Jun-96

149,138.01

H7-73

Jul-96

110,029.52

H7-74

Aug-96

224,599.50

H7-75

Sep-96

208,916.96

H7-103

Oct-96

194,233.09

H7-104

Nov-96

85,020.19

H7-105

Dec-96

168,069.41

H7-5

1995

H7-6

1995

394,243.29

H7-7

1995

416,605.49

H7-8

1995

H7-9

1995

247,657.33

PETRONCORP

295,948.69

2,268,759.56

PAMCOR

216,295.44
1,027,144.22

PILIPINAS HINO
p

7,158.63
19,676.03

H7-30

Jan-Mar 96

15,812 .47

H7-54

Apr-Jun 96

20,711 .83

H7-143

Jan-96

H7-144

Feb-96

H7-145

Mar-96

64,438.47

H7-55

Apr-96

33,280.53

H7-56

May-96

54,389.71
82,806.01

63,358.96

RICHWELL TRDG CORP

37,819.69
54,01 3. 44

H7-57

Jun-96

H7-148

Jul-96

24,365.47

H7-76

Aug-96

69,754.40

H7-77

Sep-96

71 ,223.47

H7-106

Oct-96

48,001.06

H7-158

Nov-Dec96

107,406.07

H7-124

Jan-96

SUN MASSTER SALES CORP

83,442.55

647,498.32

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 13

H7-125

Feb-96

116,460.23

H7-126

Mar-96

89,158.46

H7-127

Apr-96

31 ,1 24.84

H7-128

May-96

91 '131.68

H7-129

Jun-96

90,336.67

H7-130

Jul-96

50,174.13

H7-131

Aug-96

91 ,501.93

H7-132

Sep-96

72,508.17

H7-133

Oct-96

57,168.48

H7-134

Nov-96

82,137.44

H7-135

Dec-96

25,644.25

H7-136

Jan-Mar 96

H7-137

Apr-Jun 96

880,788.83

TIMOG TIREHAUS CORP

p

374,768.01
460,434.28

H7-138

Jui-Sep 96

424,238.44

H7-139

Oct-Dec 96

295,809.91

1 ,555 ,250.64

TIRE KING & RUBBER PROD

TIREWORLD SALES

H7-31

Jan-96

H7-32

Feb-96

32,741 .44

H?-33

Mar-96

32,303.90

H7-107

Apr-96

21,503.73

H7-108

May-96

57,946.73

H7-109

Jun-96

32,717.82

H7-110

Jul-96

41 ,316.26

H7-111

Aug-96

49,167.70

H7-112

Sep-96

30,370.02

64,953.65

H7-113

Oct-96

37,282.00

H7-114

Nov-96

48,750.15

H7-115

Dec-96

11 ,634.28

H7-116

Jan-Dec 96

460,687.68
44,748.90

TOYOTA MOTORS

H7-146

Jan-Mar 96

H7-159

Apr-Jun 96

545,913.25

H7-161/2

Jui-Sep 96

539,011.22

H7-1 63/4

Oct-Dec96

461 ,910.17

596,185.78

2,143,020.42

UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORP

YY&CO.

H7-34

Jan-Mar 96

H7-58

Apr-Jun 96

21 ,726.37

H7-78

Jui-Sep 96

25,529.59

H7-117

Oct-Dec 96

49,336.97

H7-79

Jui-Sep 96

22 ,348.66

118,941 .59
58.29

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 14

TOTAL TAXES WITHHELD PER CERTIFICATES

15,647,952.14

Less: Disallowances
(a) Taxes withheld with undeclared income

298,312.01

(b) Taxes withheld supported by certificates

that are not certified true copies

1,362.029.14

1.063.717.13

TOTAL ALLOWABLE CREDITABLE TAXES WITHHELD

14 285 923 00

As to whether or not the excess creditable withholding taxes were carried over to
the succeeding year, we answer in the negative. As shown in 1997 annual income tax
return (Exhibits

MMMMMMM & MMMMMMM-2) , petitioner left blank the space

provided for prior year' s excess credit. Hence, it was clearly shown that petitioner did
not utilize the 1996 excess credit of P6,695,518.00 for the succeeding taxable year. In
fact, petitioner even incurred a net operating loss.
Based on the foregoing, this court is convinced that petitioner is entitled only to
the reduced amount ofP 5,333,479.12, computed as follows :
1996 Taxable .Income

P640.095.73 7.00

Tax Due
Less: Tax Credits
Quarterly Payments
1s l Quarter (Exhibit E-7) P65, I 04,702.25
2nd Quarter (Exhibit F-7) 66,012,962.91
3rd Quarter (Exhibit G-7) 51,160,038.96
Creditable Tax Withheld

P224,03 3,508.00

Pl82,277,704.12
14,285,923.00

196,563,627. 12

Amount Payable
Less: Amount Paid

P 27,469,880.88
32,803,360.00

Amount Refundable

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review

IS

5.333.479.12

hereby PARTIALLY

GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ORDERED to REFUND or, in the

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 15

alternative, ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of the petitioner in the

reduced amount of P5,333,479.12 representing its overpaid income tax withheld for
taxable year 1996.
SO ORDERED.

~----~ r Q~

ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Judge

I CONCUR:

a_~e.~/~.
~ANITO C. CASTANEDA,~
Associate Judge

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the above decision was reached after due consultation with
the members ofthe Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution.

~ ~ . .~

ERNESTO D. ACOSTA
Presiding Judge

DECISION
CTA Case No. 5781
Page 16

Annex 1

CUSTOMER

C.J. FERNANDEZ ENTRP

EWT

EWTBase

Sales per

Difference-sales

per Certificate

per Certificate

BooksiiTR

per BooksiiTR is

(A)

[(A)/0.01]

1,200,918.82 p

120,091 ,882.00 p

(Over) Under

120,859,752 .93 p

(767,870.93) -

COLUMBIAN AUTOCAR

12,050.00

1,205,000.00

74,293,742.76

COMML MOTORS CORP

19,932.67

1,993,267.00

2,551 ' 140.75

(557,873.75)

DASHER MKTG CORP

1,204,418.88

120,441 ,888.00

131 ,565,829.20

(11 ' 123,941 .20)

(73,088,742.76)

DURATRAK CORP

1,624,903.72

162,490,372.00

158,564,130.15

3,926,241.85

FB LADAO SALES

853,398.90

85,339,890.00

83,691 ,487.43

1,648,402.57

FRANCISCO MOTORS

153,566.31

15,356,631 .00

14,463,924.81

892,706.19

HERSAN TRDG CORP

207,710.30

20,771 ,030.00

21 ' 107,469.43

(336,439.43)

MARCOPPER MINING

9,738.25

973,825.00

225.30

22,530.00

903,174.25

90,317,425.00

100,205,345.62

(9,887,920.62)
(13,081 ,934.58)

NEW BIAN YEK COMML

NEW CAPITOL TIRE
NISSAN MOTOR PHILS

973,825.00
22,530.00

247,657.33

24,765,733.00

37,847,667 .58

PETRON CORP

2,268,759.56

226,875,956.00

215,960,818.88

_J 0,915,137.12

PAMCOR

1,027,144.22

102,714,422.00

186,793,253.56

(84,078,831 .56)
(3,667 ,550.1 0)

PILIPINAS HINO

63,358.96

6,335,896.00

10,003,446.10

RICHWELL TRDG CORP

647,498.32

64,749,832.00

68,069,801 .40

(3,319,969.40)

SUN MASSTER SALES

880,788.83

88,078,883.00

91 ,735,114.69

(3,656,231 .69)

1,555,250.74

155,525,074.00

162,017,898.70

(6,492,824.70)

460,687.68

46,068,768.00

43,597,215.62

2,471 ,552.38

44,748.90

4,474,890.00

4,596,758.92

(121 ,868.92)

2,143,020.42

214,302,042.00

213,624,875.53

677,166.47

119,009.88

11 ,900,988.00

13,760,540.47

(1 ,859,552.47)

15,647,962.24 p

1,564,796,224.00 p

1,755,310,214.53 p

TIMOG TIREHAUS CORP

TIRE KING & RUBBER
TIREWORLD SALES
TOYOTA MOTORS
UNIVERSAL MOTORS
YY &CO.
TOTALS

(190,513,990.53)