Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.

Isabela Cultural Corporation (February

12, 2007)

Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses

1
CIR v. GENERAL FOODS (PHILS.) INC.
(APRIL 24, 2003)
Petitioner: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Respondents: General Foods (Phils.), Inc.,
Author: Aguilar
Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses
FACTS:
Respondent corporation General Foods (Phils), which is engaged in the
manufacture of “Tang”, “Calumet” and “Kool-Aid”, filed its income tax return
for the fiscal year ending February 1985 and claimed as deduction, among other
business expenses, P9,461,246 for media advertising for “Tang”.
The Commissioner disallowed 50% of the deduction claimed and assessed
deficiency income taxes of P2,635,141.42 against General Foods, prompting the
latter to file a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.
General Foods later on filed a petition for review at Court of Appeals which
reversed and set aside an earlier decision by Court of Tax Appeals dismissing
the company’s appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject media advertising expense for Tang incurred
by respondent corporation was an ordinary and necessary expense fully
deductible under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
RULING: NO
Section 34 (A) (1), formerly Section 29 (a) (1) (A), of the NIRC provides that to be
deductible from gross income, the subject advertising expense must comply
with the following requisites: (a) the expense must be ordinary and necessary;
(b) it must have been paid or incurred during the taxable year; (c) it must have
been paid or incurred in carrying on the trade or business of the taxpayer; and
(d) it must be supported by receipts, records or other pertinent papers.
In this case, while the subject advertising expense was paid or incurred within
the corresponding taxable year and was incurred in carrying on a trade or
business, hence necessary, the parties’ views conflict as to whether or not it
was ordinary. To be deductible, an advertising expense should not only be
necessary but also ordinary.
Advertising is generally of two kinds: (1) advertising to stimulate
the current sale of merchandise or use of services and (2) advertising designed
to stimulate the future sale of merchandise or use of services. The second type
involves expenditures incurred, in whole or in part, to create or maintain some
form of goodwill for the taxpayers trade or business or for the industry or
profession of which the taxpayer is a member. If the expenditures are for the
advertising of the first kind, then, except as to the question of the
reasonableness of amount, there is no doubt such expenditures are deductible
as business expenses. If, however, the expenditures are for advertising of the
second kind, then normally they should be spread out over a reasonable period
of time.
In this case, the subject advertising expense was of the second kind. Not only
was the amount staggering; the respondent corporation itself also admitted, in
its letter protest to the Commissioner of Internal Revenues assessment, that the
subject media expense was incurred in order to protect respondent
corporations brand franchise, a critical point during the period under review.
The protection of brand franchise is analogous to the maintenance of goodwill
or title to ones property. This is a capital expenditure which should be spread
out over a reasonable period of time.
The Court finds the subject expense for the advertisement of a single product to
be inordinately large. Therefore, even if it is necessary, it cannot be considered
an ordinary expense deductible under then Section 29 (a) (1) (A) of the NIRC.
2
AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION VS CIR
Held/Ratio: No
Petitioner: Aguinaldo Industries Corporation
Respondent: Commissioner Internal Revenue, Court Of Tax Appeals The bonus given to the officers of the petitioner as their share of the profit
Author: Susan realized from the sale of petitioner's Muntinglupa land cannot be deemed a
deductible expense for tax purposes, even if the aforesaid sale could be
Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses considered as a transaction for Carrying on the trade or business of the
Doctrine: In general. All the Ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred petitioner and the grant of the bonus to the corporate officers pursuant to
during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including a petitioner's by-laws could, as an intra-corporate matter, be sustained. The
reasonable allowance for personal services actually rendered records show that the sale was effected through a broker who was paid by
petitioner a commission of P51,723.72 for his services. On the other hand, there
is absolutely no evidence of any service actually rendered by petitioner's
Facts:
officers which could be the basis of a grant to them of a bonus out of the profit
derived from the sale. This being so, the payment of a bonus to them out of the
Aguinaldo Industries Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in two lines
gain realized from the sale cannot be considered as a selling expense; nor can it
of business, namely: (a) the manufacture of fishing nets, a tax-exempt industry,
be deemed reasonable and necessary so as to make it deductible for tax
and (b) the manufacture of furniture Its business of manufacturing fishing nets
purposes.
is handled by its Fish Nets Division, while the manufacture of Furniture is
operated by its Furniture Division. Petitioner acquired a parcel of land in
Disposition: The case is Dismissed.
Muntinglupa, Rizal, as site of the fishing net factory, Muntinglupa property was
sold. Petitioner derived profit from this sale which was entered in the books of
the Fish Nets Division as miscellaneous income to distinguish it from its tax-
exempt income. After investigation of these returns, the examiners of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue found that the Fish Nets Division deducted from its
gross income for that year the amount of P61,187.48 as additional
remuneration paid to the officers of petitioner. The examiner further found that
this amount was taken from the net profit of an isolated transaction (sale of
aforementioned land) not in the course of or carrying on of petitioner's trade or
business. Upon recommendation of aforesaid examiner that the said sum of
P61,187.48 be disallowed as deduction from gross income.

Petitioner argues that the profit derived from the sale of its Muntinglupa land is
not taxable for it is tax-exempt income, considering that its Fish Nets Division
enjoys tax exemption as a new and necessary industry under Republic Act 901.

Issue: Whether or not the bonus given to the officers of the petitioner upon the
sale of its Muntinglupa land is an ordinary and necessary business expense
deductible for income tax purposes?

3
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV. CORP. VS. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
No. L-26911. January 27, 1981
Petitioner: ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
No. L-26924. January 27, 1981
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Respondent: ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
and COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses
Doctrine: Expenses relating to the recapitalization and reorganization of the
Corporation, promotion expenses and commission or fees for the sale of stock
are capital expenditures. Litigation expenses incurred in defense or protection
of title are capital in nature and not deductible.
Facts:
 Atlas is a corporation engaged in the mining industry registered under
the laws of the Philippines.
 The Commissioner assessed against Atlas deficiency income taxes. The
assessment of deficiency income tax covers the disallowance of items
claimed by Atlas as deductible from gross income.
 Atlas protested the assessment asking for its reconsideration and
cancellation. Acting on the protest, the Commissioner conducted a
reinvestigation of the case.
 The assessment was reduced from which Atlas appealed to the Court of
Tax Appeals, assailing the disallowance of Transfer agent’s,
Stockholders relation service fee, U.S. stock listing expenses Suit
expenses and Provision for contingencies as deductible from its gross
income for 1958.
 After hearing, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision on allowing
the disallowed items, except the items denominated by Atlas as
stockholders relation service fee and suit expenses.
 Both parties appealed by separate petitions for review.
Petitioner’s Contention: Atlas contends that the amount paid in 1958 as annual
public relations expenses is a deductible expense from gross income under
Section 30(a) (1) of the National Internal Revenue Code. because it was paid for
services of a public relations firm, hence, an ordinary and necessary business
expense and that the information given out to the public in general and to the
stockholder concerning the operation of the Atlas was aimed at creating a
favorable image and goodwill to gain or maintain their patronage.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the expenses paid for the services rendered by a public
relations is an allowable deduction as business expense.
(2) Whether or not suit expenses deductible as a business expense.
Ruling+Ratio:
(1) No.
Statutory test of deductibility:
(1) the expense must be ordinary and necessary
(2) it must be paid or incurred within the taxable year, and
(3) it must be paid or incurred in carrying in a trade or business.
In addition, not only must the taxpayer meet the business test, he must
substantially prove by evidence or records the deductions claimed under
the law, otherwise, the same will be disallowed. The mere allegation of
the taxpayer that an item of expense is ordinary and necessary does not
justify its deduction.
Ordinarily, an expense will be considered “necessary” where the
expenditure is appropriate and helpful in the development of the
taxpayer’s business. It is “ordinary” when it connotes a payment which is
normal in relation to the business of the taxpayer and the surrounding
circumstances. The term “ordinary” does not require that the payments be
habitual or normal in the sense that the same taxpayer will have to make
them often; the payment may be unique or nonrecurring to the particular
taxpayer affected.
4
 There is no hard and fast rule for deductibility of any specific type of amount as part of the net income, the corresponding income tax shall be paid
business expense. The right to a deduction depends in each case on the thereon, with interest of 6% per annum from June 20, 1959 to June 20, 1962.
particular facts and the relation of the payment to the type of business in
which the taxpayer is engaged. The intention of the taxpayer often may be
the controlling fact in making the determination. Assuming that the
expenditure is ordinary and necessary in the operation of the taxpayer’s
business, the answer to the question as to whether the expenditure is an
allowable deduction as a business expense must be determined from the
nature of the expenditure itself, which in turn depends on the extent and
permanency of the work accomplished by the expenditure.

In this case, it appears that Atlas increased its capital stock. It was claimed
by Atlas that its shares of stock were sold in US because of the services
rendered by the public relations firm. The CTA ruled that the information
about Atlas given out and played up in the mass communication media
resulted in full subscription of the additional shares issued by Atlas;
consequently, the questioned item, stockholders relation service fee, was
in effect spent for the acquisition of additional capital, ergo, a capital
expenditure. The court sustained the ruling of the tax court that the
expenditure paid to P.K. Macker & Co. as compensation for services
carrying on the selling campaign in an effort to sell Atlas’ additional capital
stock is not an ordinary expense. Expenses relating to the recapitalization
and reorganization of the Corporation, promotion expenses and
commission or fees for the sale of stock are capital expenditures.

(2) No.
On the ground that the litigation expense was a capital expenditure under
Section 121 of the Revenue Regulation No. 2. In this case, litigation
expenses were incurred in defense of Atlas title to its mining properties.
Thus, litigation expenses incurred in defense or protection of title are
capital in nature and not deductible.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with

modification that the amount of P17,499.98 (3/4 of P23,333.00) representing
suit expenses be disallowed as deduction instead of P6,666.65 only. With this
5
ZAMORA VS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE (1963) her trips were combined medical and business trips. Hence, not all of her
expenses came under the category of ordinary and necessary expenses; part
Petitioner: Collector of Internal Revenue thereof constituted her personal expenses. There having no receipts to prove
Respondent: Mariano Zamora that expense was incurred by her in connection with the business of Mariano
Author: Barba Zamora and which was incurred for her personal benefit, the Collector and the
CTA in their decisions, considered 50% of the said amount of P20,957.00 as
Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses business expenses and the other 50%, as her personal expenses.

Facts:
1. Mariano Zamora was the owner of Bay View Hotel and Farmacia Zamora in
Manila. He filed his income tax return for the years 1951 and 1952.
2. Collector of Internal Revenue found that the promotion expenses incurred by
Zamora’s wife for the promotion of Bay View Hotel and Farmacia Zamora were
not allowable deductions.
3. Mariano Zamora contends that the whole amount of the promotion expense
in his income returns, should be allowed not merely one-half of it, on the
ground that while not all the itemized expenses are supported by receipts, the
absence of some supporting receipts has been sufficiently and satisfactorily
established.

Issue: Whether or not the business expense should be allowed as a deduction in

full.

Ruling: No.
Section 30, of the Tax Code, provides that in computing net income,
there shall be allowed as deductions all the ordinary and necessary expenses
paid or incurred during the taxable year, in carrying on any trade or business.
Since promotion expenses constitute one of the deductions in conducting a
business, same must testify these requirements. Claim for the deduction of
promotion expenses or entertainment expenses must also be substantiated or
supported by record showing in detail the amount and nature of the expenses
incurred.
In this case, while Mrs. Zamora’s dollar allocation proves that she has
indeed incurred promotional expenses during her trips abroad, it appears that

6
C.M. Hoskins & Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (November 28,
1969)

Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses

7
C.F. CALANOC vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Author: Jay Dedicatoria
Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses
Doctrine: Taxation; assessment for amusement tax; expenses exorbitant;
exemption from payment not allowed. Application for exemption from payment
of amusement tax will be denied where the net proceeds of the exhibition
conducted for charitable purposes are not substantial or where the expenses
incurred by the taxpayer are exorbitant.
Facts:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming an
assessment of P7,378.57, by the Collector of Internal Revenue as amusement
tax and surcharge due on a boxing and wrestling exhibition held by petitioner
Calanoc at the Rizal Memorial Stadium.
By authority of a solicitation permit issued by the Social Welfare Commission,
the petitioner was authorized to solicit and receive contributions for the
orphans and destitute children of the Child Welfare Workers Club of the
Commission, the petitioner financed and promoted a boxing and wrestling
exhibition at the Rizal Memorial Stadium for the said charitable purpose. Before
the exhibition took place, the petitioner applied with the respondent Collector
of Internal Revenue for exemption from payment of the amusement tax, relying
on the provisions of Section 260 of the National Internal Revenue Code, to
which the respondent answered that the exemption depended upon
petitioner's compliance with the requirements of law.
After the said exhibition, the respondent, through his agent, investigated the
tax case of the petitioner, and from the statement of receipts which was
furnished the agent, the latter found that the gross sales amounted to
P26,553.00; the expenditures incurred was P25,157.62; and the net profit was
only P1,375,30. Upon examination of the said receipts, the agent also found the
following items of expenditures: (a) P461.65 for police protection; (b) P460.00
for gifts; (c) P1,880.05 for parties; and (d) several items for representation.
Out of the proceeds of the exhibition, only P1,375.38 was remitted to the Social
Welfare Commission for the said charitable purpose for which the permit was
issued.
On November 24, 1951, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded from the
petitioner payment of the amount of 533.00; the expenditures incurred was
P25,157.62; and the net profit was only P1,375,38. Upon examination of the
Secretary of Finance dated June 15, 1948, authorizing denial of application for
exemption from payment of amusement tax in cases where the net proceeds
are not substantial or where the expenses are exorbitant. Not satisfied with the
assessment imposed upon him, the petitioner brought this case to the Court of
Tax Appeals for review.
Issue: Whether or not the tax assessment valid?
Ruling:
Yes. Evidence was submitted that while he did not receive said stadium fee of
P1,000, said amount was paid by the O-SO Beverages directly to the stadium for
advertisement privileges in the evening of the entertainments. As the fee was
paid by said concessionaire, petitioner had no right to include the P1,000
stadium fee among the items of his expenses. It results, therefore, that P1,000
went into petitioner's pocket which is not accounted for.
Furthermore petitioner admitted that he could not justify the other expenses,
such as those for police protection and gifts. He claims further that the
accountant who prepared the statement of receipts is already dead and could
no longer be questioned on the items contained in said statement.
We have examined the records of the case and we agree with the lower court
that most of the items of expenditures contained in the statement submitted to
the agent are either exorbitant or not supported by receipts. We agree with the
tax court that the payment of P461.65 for police protection is illegal as it is a
consideration given by the petitioner to the police for the performance by the
latter of the functions required of them to be rendered by law. The
expenditures of P460.00 for gifts, P1,880.05 for parties and other items for
representation are rather excessive, considering that the purpose of the
exhibition was for a charitable cause.
8
Kuenzle & Streiff, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue (October 20, 1959)

Topic: Deductions; Business Expenses

9
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals (December
1, 1995) (2 topics: Interests and Losses)

Topic: Deductions; Interest and Losses

10
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Vda. de Prieto (September 30, 1960)

Topic: Deductions; Interest

11
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lednicky (July 31, 1964)

Topic: Deductions; Taxes

12
Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (April 16,
2008)

Topic: Deductions; Bad Debts

13
PHILIPPINE REFINING COMPANY V. CA and P69,640.34, respectively, both of which allegedly arose from the hijacking
of their cargo and for which they were given 30% rebates by PRC, are claimed to
Author: Fontanilla be uncollectible. Again, petitioner failed to present an iota of proof, not even a
Topic: Deductions; Bad Debts copy of the supposed policy regulation of PRC that it gives rebates to clients in
case of loss arising from fortuitous events or force majeure, which rebates it
Facts: now passes off as uncollectible debts.

Petitioner Philippine Refining Company (PRC), was assessed by the CIR to pay a
deficiency tax in the amount of P1,892,584. Thereafter, PRC protested that the
said amounts are bad debts and interest expense, which are allowable and legal
deductions. But, CIR ignored it and issued a warrant of garnishment against
PRC's deposits at City Trust Bank. PRC filed a Petition for Review with the CTA
who reversed the interest expense disallowance but maintained the 13 bad
debts disallowance. PRC elevated the case to CA who dismissed the case for
failing to satisfy the requirements of worthlessness of a debt.

Issue: W/N bad debts requirements are met to be deductible.

Held:
NO. There are steps outlined to be undertaken by the taxpayer to prove that he
exerted diligent efforts to collect the debts, viz: (1) sending of statement of
accounts; (2) sending of collection letters; (3) giving the account to a lawyer for
collection; and (4) filing a collection case in court.

The only evidentiary support given by PRC for its aforesaid claimed deductions
was the explanation or justification posited by its financial adviser or
accountant. Not a single document was offered to show that the Remoblas
Store and CM Variety Store were burned, even just a police report or an
affidavit attesting to such loss by fire. The account of Tomas Store in the
amount of P16,842.79 is uncollectible, claims petitioner PRC, since the owner
thereof was murdered and left no visible assets which could satisfy the debt.
Withal, just like the accounts of the two other stores just mentioned, petitioner
again failed to present proof of the efforts exerted to collect the debt, other
than the aforestated asseverations of its financial adviser. The accounts of
Aboitiz Shipping Corporation and J. Ruiz Trucking in the amounts of P89,483.40
14
Fernandez Hermanos, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (September
30, 1969)

Topic: Deductions; Bad Debts

15
Basilan Estates, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (September 5, 1967)

Topic: Deductions; Depreciation

16
Limpan Investment Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (July 26,
1966)

Topic: Deductions; Depreciation

17
Consolidated Mines, Inc. vs. Court of Tax Appeals (August 29, 1974)

Topic: Deductions; Depletion

18
3M Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (September 26, 1988)

Topic: Deductions; Research and Development

19
ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC v CIR
G.R. Nos. L-28508-9 July 7, 1989
Petitioner: ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., (formerly, Standard-Vacuum Oil
Company)
Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
TOPIC: Deductions; Non-Deductible Expenses
DOCTRINE: the statutory test of deductibility where it is axiomatic that to be
deductible as a business expense, three conditions are imposed, namely: (1) the
expense must be ordinary and necessary, (2) it must be paid or incurred within
the taxable year, and (3) it must be paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or
business. In addition, not only must the taxpayer meet the business test, he
must substantially prove by evidence or records the deductions claimed under
the law, otherwise, the same will be disallowed. The mere allegation of the
taxpayer that an item of expense is ordinary and necessary does not justify its
deduction.
FACTS:
CTA Case No. 1251, petitioner ESSO deducted from its gross income for 1959, as
part of its ordinary and necessary business expenses, the amount it had spent
for drilling and exploration of its petroleum concessions. This claim was
disallowed by the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the ground
that the expenses should be capitalized and might be written off as a loss only
when a "dry hole" should result. ESSO then filed an amended return where it
asked for the refund of P323,279.00 by reason of its abandonment as dry holes
of several of its oil wells. Also claimed as ordinary and necessary expenses in
the same return was the amount of P340,822.04, representing margin fees it
had paid to the Central Bank on its profit remittances to its New York head
office.
On August 5, 1964, the CIR granted a tax credit of P221,033.00 only, disallowing
the claimed deduction for the margin fees paid.
In CTA Case No. 1558, the CR assessed ESSO a deficiency income tax for the year
1960, in the amount of P367,994.00, plus 18% interest thereon of P66,238.92
for the period from April 18,1961 to April 18, 1964, for a total of P434,232.92.
The deficiency arose from the disallowance of the margin fees of Pl,226,647.72
paid by ESSO to the Central Bank on its profit remittances to its New York head
office.
ESSO settled this deficiency assessment on August 10, 1964, by applying the tax
credit of P221,033.00 representing its overpayment on its income tax for 1959
and paying under protest the additional amount of P213,201.92. On August 13,
1964, it claimed the refund of P39,787.94 as overpayment on the interest on its
deficiency income tax. It argued that the 18% interest should have been
imposed not on the total deficiency of P367,944.00 but only on the amount of
P146,961.00, the difference between the total deficiency and its tax credit of
P221,033.00.
Petitioner contends that the margin fees were deductible from gross income
either as a tax or as an ordinary and necessary business expense.
CIR: denied the claims of ESSO for refund of the overpayment of its 1959 and
1960 income taxes, holding that the margin fees paid to the Central Bank could
not be considered taxes or allowed as deductible business expenses.
CTA: denied petitioner's claim for refund. Adopt the decision of CIR
ISSUE:
W/N the margin fees paid by the petitioner to the Central Bank on its profit
remittances to its New York head office shall be considered as ordinary and
necessary business expense and should be deductible from ESSO's gross income
RULING: NO
Under Section 30(a) (1) of the National Internal Revenue which allows a
deduction of 'all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during
the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. The test of what
constitutes an ordinary and necessary deductible expense (as discussed in the
case of Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue): (1) the expense must be ordinary and
necessary, (2) it must be paid or incurred within the taxable year, and (3) it
must be paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business. In addition, not only
20
must the taxpayer meet the business test, he must substantially prove by
evidence or records the deductions claimed under the law, otherwise, the same
will be disallowed. The mere allegation of the taxpayer that an item of expense
is ordinary and necessary does not justify its deduction.

The court held that margin fees are bot necessary and ordinary
expenses, that the margin fees are not expenses in connection with the
production or earning of petitioner's incomes in the Philippines. They were
expenses incurred in the disposition of said incomes; expenses for the
remittance of funds after they have already been earned by petitioner's branch
in the Philippines for the disposal of its Head Office in New York which is already
another distinct and separate income taxpayer.

Since the margin fees in question were incurred for the remittance of
funds to petitioner's Head Office in New York, which is a separate and distinct
income taxpayer from the branch in the Philippines, for its disposal abroad, it
can never be said therefore that the margin fees were appropriate and helpful
in the development of petitioner's business in the Philippines exclusively or
were incurred for purposes proper to the conduct of the affairs of petitioner's
branch in the Philippines exclusively or for the purpose of realizing a profit or of
minimizing a loss in the Philippines exclusively. If at all, the margin fees were
incurred for purposes proper to the conduct of the corporate affairs of Standard
Vacuum Oil Company in New York, but certainly not in the Philippines.

ESSO has not shown that the remittance to the head office of part of its
profits was made in furtherance of its own trade or business. The petitioner
merely presumed that all corporate expenses are necessary and appropriate in
the absence of a showing that they are illegal or ultra vires. This is error. The
public respondent is correct when it asserts that "the paramount rule is that
claims for deductions are a matter of legislative grace and do not turn on mere
equitable considerations. The taxpayer in every instance has the burden of
justifying the allowance of any deduction claimed."
It is clear that ESSO, having assumed an expense properly attributable to its
head office, cannot now claim this as an ordinary and necessary expense paid or
incurred in carrying on its own trade or business.
CTA decision of denying ESSO’s claim for refund is affirmed.

21