1)

Facts Government:

The Government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue conducted an examination of books
of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period from
taxable year 1998 of Lancaster Inc. After the examination, BIR issued Preliminary Assessment
Notice (PAN)8 which cited Lancaster for: 1) overstatement of its purchases for the fiscal year
April 1998 to March 1999; and 2) noncompliance with the generally accepted accounting
principle of proper matching of cost and revenue. The contention of the BIR is based on Section
45 of the National Internal Revenue Code in relation to Section 43 of the same and Revenue
Regulations No. 2 which states that the Crop-Basis method of reporting income may be used by
a farmer engaged in producing crops which take more than one (1) year from the time of
planting to the time of gathering and disposing of crop, in such a case, the entire cost of
producing the crop must be taken as deduction in the year in which the gross income from the
crop is realized and that the taxable income should be computed upon the basis of the
taxpayer's annual accounting period

Facts Taxpayer:

Lancaster upon receipt of PAN argued that , that for the past decades, it has used an entire
'tobacco-cropping season' to determine its total purchases covering a one-year period from 1
October up to 30 September of the following year (as against its fiscal year which is from 1 April
up to 31 March of the following year); that it has been adopting the 6-month timing difference
to conform to the matching concept (of cost and revenue); and that this has long been
installed as part of the company's system and consistently applied in its accounting books.

Issue:

Whether the BIR is correct in disallowing the February and March 1998 purchases as expenses ,
which Lancaster posted in its fiscal year ending on 31 March 1999 (FY 1999) instead of the fiscal
year ending on 31 March 1998?

Ruling:

The Court found it wholly justifiable for Lancaster, as a business engaged in the production and
marketing of tobacco, to adopt the crop method of accounting. A taxpayer is authorized to
employ what it finds suitable for its purpose so long as it consistently does so, and in this case,
Lancaster does appear to have utilized the method regularly for many decades already.
Considering that the crop year of Lancaster starts from October up to September of the
following year, it follows that all of its expenses in the crop production made within the crop year
starting from October 1997 to September 1998, including the February and March 1998
purchases covered by purchase invoice vouchers, are rightfully deductible for income tax
purposes in the year when the gross income from the crops are realized.
Personal End notes:

General rule:

The deductions provided for in NIRC shall be taken for the taxable year in which 'paid or
accrued' or 'paid or incurred,' dependent upon the method of accounting upon the basis of
which the net income is computed, unless in order to clearly reflect the income, the deductions
should be taken as of a different period.

A taxpayer is authorized to employ what it finds suitable for its purpose so long as it consistently
does so, and in this case, Lancaster does appear to have utilized the method regularly for many
decades already. Considering that the crop year of Lancaster starts from October up to
September of the following year, it follows that all of its expenses in the crop production made
within the crop year starting from October 1997 to September 1998, including the February and
March 1998 purchases covered by purchase invoice vouchers, are rightfully deductible for
income tax purposes in the year when the gross income from the crops are realized

4)

Facts Government:

In 1989, the Government through the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued an assessment against
China Banking Corporation finding them liable for deficiency DST on the sales of foreign bills of
exchange to the Central Bank. CBC filed a protest for said assessment. On 2001, more than 12
years after the filing of the protest, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) rendered a
decision reiterating the deficiency DST assessment and ordered the payment thereof plus
increments within 30 days from receipt of the Decision.

Facts Taxpayer :

China Banking Corporation is a universal bank duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines. For the taxable years 1982 to 1986, CBC was engaged in transactions involving sales
of foreign exchange to the Central Bank of the Philippines. Upon receipt of the notice of
assessment, CBC filed its protest on 1898, raising the following defenses: ) double taxation, as the
bank had previously paid the DST on all its transactions involving sales of foreign bills of
exchange to the Central Bank; (2) absence of liability, as the liability for the DST in a sale of
foreign exchange through telegraphic transfers to the Central Bank falls on the buyer ? in this
case, the Central Bank; (3) due process violation, as the bank’s records were never formally
examined by the BIR examiners; (4) validity of the assessment, as it did not include the factual
basis therefore; (5) exemption, as neither the tax-exempt entity nor the other party was liable for
the payment of DST before the effectivity of Presidential Decree Nos. (PD) 1177 and 1931 for the
years 1982 to 1986. CBC states that the government has three years from 19 April 1989, the date
the former received the assessment of the CIR, to collect the tax. Within that time frame,
however, neither a warrant of distraint or levy was issued, nor a collection case filed in court.

Issue:
Whether the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST from CBC is barred by prescription

Ruling:

The Court granted the Petition on the ground that the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST
is barred by the statute of limitations. e records do not show when the assessment notice was
mailed, released or sent to CBC. Nevertheless, the latest possible date that the BIR could have
released, mailed or sent the assessment notice was on the same date that CBC received it, 19
April 1989. Assuming therefore that 19 April 1989 is the reckoning date, the BIR had three years to
collect the assessed DST. However, the records of this case show that there was neither a
warrant of distraint or levy served on CBC's properties nor a collection case filed in court by the
BIR within the three-year period. The demand was made almost thirteen years from the date
from which the prescriptive period is to be reckoned. Thus, the attempt to collect the tax was
made way beyond the three-year prescriptive period. Also, the fact that the taxpayer in this
case may have requested a reinvestigation did not toll the running of the three-year prescriptive
period as provided in Section 320 of the 1977 Tax Code. The Court likewise pronounced that
although petitioner has raised the issue of prescription for the first time only, If the pleadings or
the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the court is mandated to
dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense.

Personal End notes:

If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the
court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense.

3) PHILACOR CREDIT CORPORATION , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Facts Government :

Philacor is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of retail financing. A prospective

buyer of a home appliance – with neither cash nor any credit card – may purchase appliances
on installment basis from an appliance dealer. BIR examined Philacor’s books of accounts and
other accounting records for the fiscal year August 1, 1992 to July 31, 1993, and was demanded
with tentative computations of deficiency taxes totaling P20, 037,013.83. BIR argued that since the subject
promissory notes do not bear documentary stamps, Philacor can be held liable for DST. As for the assignments, it
forwarded that each and every transaction involving promissory notes is subject to the DST under Section 173 of the
1986 Tax Code; Philacor is liable as the transferee and assignee of the promissory notes

Facts Taxpayer:

Philacor protested the assessment on the ground that the assessed deficiency income tax was erroneously
computed when it failed to take into account the reversing entries of the revenue accounts and income
adjustments, such as repossessions, write-offs and legal accounts. Also, , Philacor claims that the accredited
appliance dealers were required by law to affix the documentary stamps on all promissory notes purchased until the
enactment of RA 7660
Issue:

Philacor is liable for the Documentary Stamps Tax on the issuance of promissory notes

Ruling:
As provided in the Tax Code, the persons primarily liable for the payment of DST are the persons (1) making; (2)
signing; (3) issuing; (4) accepting; or (5) transferring the taxable documents, instruments or papers. Should these
parties be exempted from paying tax, the other party who is not exempt would then be liable. In this case, petitioner
Philacor is engaged in the business of retail financing. Through retail financing, a prospective buyer of home appliance
may purchase an appliance on installment by executing a unilateral promissory note in favor of the appliance dealer,
and the same promissory note is assigned by the appliance dealer to Philacor. Thus, under this arrangement, Philacor
did not make, sign, issue, accept or transfer the promissory notes. It is the buyer of the appliances who made, signed
and issued the documents subject to tax while it is the appliance dealer who transferred these documents to Philacor
which likewise indisputably received or “accepted” them. Acceptance, however, is an act that is not even applicable
to promissory notes, but only to bills of exchange. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the act of acceptance refers
solely to bills of exchange. In a ruling adopted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as early as 1995, “acceptance” has
been defined as having reference to incoming foreign bills of exchange which are accepted in the Philippines by the
drawees thereof, and not as referring to the common usage of the word as in receiving. Thus, a party to a taxable
transaction who “accepts” any documents or instruments in the plain and ordinary meaning does not become
primarily liable for the tax

PEN:
the persons primarily liable for the payment of DST are the persons (1) making; (2) signing; (3) issuing; (4) accepting;
or (5) transferring the taxable documents, instruments or papers. Should these parties be exempted from paying tax,
the other party who is not exempt would then be liable

CIR vs Pilipinas Shell Petroleuem Corp

Facts Governments:

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation is a manufacturer or producer of gas and fuel which are
used by international carriers. Under Section 135 the tax code, petroleum products sold to
international carriers are tax-exempt. Pilipinas Shell, based on excise taxes it allegedly paid on
sales and deliveries of gas and fuel oils to various international carriers during the period of
October to December 2001, January to March 2002, and April to June 2002 filed a formal claim
for tax refund or tax credit with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, despite such claims, no
action was taken by the CIR. CIR avers that Sec. 130 (D) is explicit on the circumstances under
which a taxpayer may claim for a refund of excise taxes paid on manufactured products, which
express enumeration did not include those excise taxes paid on petroleum products which were
eventually sold to international carriers

Facts Taxpayer:
Pilipinas Shell maintains that maintains that since petroleum products sold to qualified
international carriers are exempt from excise tax, no taxes should be imposed on the article, to
which goods the tax attaches, whether in the hands of the said international carriers or the
petroleum manufacturer or producer. As these excise taxes have been erroneously paid taxes, they
can be recovered under Sec. 229 of the NIRC.

Issue:

Whether Plipinas Shell as manufacturer or producer of petroleum products is exempt from the
payment of excise tax on such petroleum products it sold to international carrier

Ruling:

The claims for tax refund or credit filed by respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation are
should be denied for lack of basis. The language of Sec. 135 indicates that the tax exemption
mentioned therein is conferred on specified buyers or consumers of the excisable articles or goods
(petroleum products). Unlike Sec. 134 which explicitly exempted the article or goods itself
(domestic denatured alcohol) without due regard to the tax status of the buyer or purchaser, Sec.
135 exempts from excise tax petroleum products which were sold to international carriers and
other tax-exempt agencies and entities.

Excise tax is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the purchaser, and there being no express grant
under the NIRC of exemption from payment of excise tax to local manufacturers of petroleum
products sold to international carriers, and absent any provision in the Code authorizing the refund
or crediting of such excise taxes paid, the Court holds that Sec. 135 (a) should be construed as
prohibiting the shifting of the burden of the excise tax to the international carriers who buys
petroleum products from the local manufacturers. Said provision thus merely allows the
international carriers to purchase petroleum products without the excise tax component as an added
cost in the price fixed by the manufacturers or distributors/sellers. Consequently, the oil companies
which sold such petroleum products to international carriers are not entitled to a refund of excise
taxes previously paid on the goods.

PEN:

Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions which result to loss of revenue for the government.
Upon the person claiming an exemption from tax payments rests the burden of justifying the
exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted, it is never
presumed nor be allowed solely on the ground of equity.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs McGeorge Food Industries, Inc.

Facts Government:

McGeorge Food Industries, Inc. filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) its final
adjustment income tax return for the calendar year ending 31 December 1997. The return indicated
a tax liability of P5,393,988 against a total payment of P10,130,176 for the first three quarters,
resulting in a net overpayment of P4,736,188 . It chose to carry it over to the succeeding year as
tax credit, indicating in its 1997 final return that it wished the amount to be applied as credit to
next year. It then filed its final adjustment return for the calendar year ending 31 December 1998,
indicating a tax liability of P5,799,056. Instead of applying to this amount its unused tax credit
carried over from 1997 (P4,736,188), as it was supposed to do, Mcgeorge merely deducted from
its tax liability the taxes withheld at source for 1998 (P217,179) and paid the balance of P5,581,877
The Government through the Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserts that respondent is
precluded from seeking a refund for its overpayment in 1997 after it opted to carry-over and apply
it to its future tax liability, following Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC. Section 76 applies to
respondent because by the time respondent filed its final adjustment return for 1997 on 15 April
1998, the 1997 NIRC was already in force, having taken effect on 1 January 1998.

Facts Taxpayer:

McGeorge Food Industries, Inc claims that the refund was proper because respondent complied
with the requirements of timely filing of the claim and its substantiation.

Issue:

Whether or not McGeorge Food Industries is entitled to tax refund

RULING:

The respondent is not entitled to a refund under Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC, the law in effect at the time respondent
made known to the BIR its preference to carry over and apply its overpayment in 1997 to its tax liability in 1998. In
lieu of refund, respondent’s overpayment should be applied to its tax liability for the taxable years following 1998
until it is fully credited. Once the taxpayer opts to carry-over the excess income tax against the taxes due for the
succeeding taxable years, such option is irrevocable for the whole amount of the excess income tax, thus, prohibiting
the taxpayer from applying for a refund for that same excess income tax in the next succeeding taxable years. The
unutilized excess tax credits will remain in the taxpayer’s account and will be carried over and applied against the
taxpayer’s income tax liabilities in the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized.As respondent opted to carry-over
and credit its overpayment in 1997 to its tax liability in 1998, Section 76 makes respondent’s exercise of such option
irrevocable, barring it from later switching options to "[apply] for cash refund." Instead, respondent’s overpayment in
1997 will be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until it has been fully applied to respondent’s tax liabilities.
Hence, under Section 76 of the 1997 NIRC, respondent’s claim for refund is unavailing. However, respondent is
entitled to apply its unused creditable overpayment in 1997 to its tax liability arising after 1998 until such has been
fully applied.

PEN:
Once the taxpayer opts to carry-over the excess income tax against the taxes due for the succeeding taxable years,
such option is irrevocable for the whole amount of the excess income tax, thus, prohibiting the taxpayer from applying
for a refund for that same excess income tax in the next succeeding taxable years. The unutilized excess tax credits
will remain in the taxpayer’s account and will be carried over and applied against the taxpayer’s income tax liabilities
in the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized

CBK POWER LTD vs CIR

Facts Government:

CBK Power is a limited partnership duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines, and primarily engaged in the development and operation of hydro electric
power generating plants in Laguna. BK Power borrowed money from Industrial Bank of
Japan, Fortis-Netherlands, Raiffesen CBank, Fortis-Belgium, and Mizuho Bank for which
it remitted interest payments from May 2001 to May 2003. It allegedly withheld final
taxes from said payments based on the following rates: (a) fifteen percent (15%) for
Fortis-Belgium, Fortis-Netherlands, and Raiffesen Bank; and (b) twenty percent (20%)
for Industrial Bank of Japan and Mizuho Bank. ordingly, on April 14, 2003, CBK Power
filed a claim for refund of its excess final withholding taxes allegedly erroneously withheld
and collected. The Commissioner argued that CBK Power cannot claim for refund with
respect to the excess final withholding taxes from Fortis-Netherlands because CBK Power
failed to obtain an International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) ruling pursuant to RMO No.
1-2000 with respect to the said transactions. Furthermore, the Commissioner assails the
claim for refund on the basis of CBK Power’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
prior to its filing the petition before the CTA first division.

Facts Taxpayer:

According to CBK Power, under the relevant tax treaties between the Philippines and the
respective countries in which each of the banks is a resident, the interest income derived
by the aforementioned banks are subject only to a preferential tax rate of 10%.
Accordingly, on April 14, 2003, CBK Power filed a claim for refund of its excess final
withholding taxes allegedly erroneously withheld and collected for the years 2001 and
2002 with the BIR Revenue Region No. 9. The claim for refund of excess final
withholding taxes in 2003 was subsequently filed on March 4, 2005.

Issue:

Whether or not ITAD ruling is a condition sine qua non for the claim for refund of its
erroneous payment of final withholding taxes

Ruling:

No, ITAD ruling is not required in this case. he Court held that the obligation to comply
with a tax treaty must take precedence over the objective of RMO No. 1-2000.
Bearing in mind the rationale of tax treaties, the period of application for the availment
of tax treaty relief as required by RMO No. 1-2000 should not operate to divest
entitlement to the relief as it would constitute a violation of the duty required by good
faith in complying with a tax treaty. The denial of the availment of tax relief for the failure
of a taxpayer to apply within the prescribed period under the administrative issuance
would impair the value of the tax treaty. At most, the application for a tax treaty relief
from the BIR should merely operate to confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to the
relief.

Logically, noncompliance with tax treaties has negative implications on international

relations, and unduly discourages foreign investors. While the consequences sought to be
prevented by RMO No. 1-2000 involve an administrative procedure, these may be
remedied through other system management processes, e.g., the imposition of a fine or
penalty. But we cannot totally deprive those who are entitled to the benefit of a treaty for
failure to strictly comply with an administrative issuance requiring prior application for
tax treaty relief.

PEN:

The denial of the availment of tax relief for the failure of a taxpayer to apply within the
prescribed period under the administrative issuance would impair the value of the tax
treaty. At most, the application for a tax treaty relief from the BIR should merely operate
to confirm the entitlement of the taxpayer to the relief.

RCBC v. CIR

Facts Government:

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) is a corporation engaged in general

banking operations. It seasonably filed its Corporation Annual Income Tax Returns for
Foreign Currency Deposit Unit for the calendar years 1994 and 1995. RCBC received
Letter of Authority issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue authorizing a special
audit team to examine the book of accounts and other accounting records for all internal
revenue taxes from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995. RCBC executed two Waivers of
the Defense of Prescription Under the Statute of Limitations of the NIRC covering the
internal revenue taxes due for the years 1994 and 1995, effectively extending the period
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to assess up to December 31, 2000. Then, on
January 27, 2000, RCBC received a Formal Letter of Demand together with Assessment
Notices from the BIR for the deficiency tax assessment .

Facts Taxpayer:
RCBC avers that that the waivers of the Statute of Limitations which it executed on
January 23, 1997 were not valid because the same were not signed or conformed to by the
respondent CIR as required under Section 222(b) of the Tax Code. As regards the
deficiency FCDU onshore tax, RCBC contended that because the onshore tax was
collected in the form of a final withholding tax, it was the borrower, constituted by law as
the withholding agent that was primarily liable for the remittance of the said tax. RCBC is
convinced that it is the payor-borrower, as withholding agent, who is directly liable for
the payment of onshore tax, citing Section 2.57(A) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-98.

ISSUE:

Whehter RCBC as payee-bank, can be held liable for deficiency onshore tax, which is mandated
by law to be collected at source in the form of a final withholding tax

Ruling:

RCBC erred in citing the abovementioned Revenue Regulations No. 2-98 because the
same governs collection at source on income paid only on or after January 1, 1998. . The
deficiency withholding tax subject of this petition was supposed to have been withheld on
income paid during the taxable years of 1994 and 1995. Hence, Revenue Regulations No.
2-98 obviously does not apply in this case.

The liability of the withholding agent is independent from that of the taxpayer. The former
cannot be made liable for the tax due because it is the latter who earned the income
subject to withholding tax. The withholding agent is liable only insofar as he failed to
perform his duty to withhold the tax and remit the same to the government. The liability
for the tax, however, remains with the taxpayer because the gain was realized and received
by him. While the payor-borrower can be held accountable for its negligence in
performing its duty to withhold the amount of tax due on the transaction, RCBC, as the
taxpayer and the one which earned income on the transaction, remains liable for the
payment of tax as the taxpayer shares the responsibility of making certain that the tax is
properly withheld by the withholding agent, so as to avoid any penalty that may arise from
the non-payment of the withholding tax due. RCBC cannot evade its liability for FCDU
Onshore Tax by shifting the blame on the payor-borrower as the withholding agent. As
such, it is liable for payment of deficiency onshore tax on interest income derived from
foreign currency loans.

PEN:

The liability of the withholding agent is independent from that of the taxpayer. The former
cannot be made liable for the tax due because it is the latter who earned the income
subject to withholding tax. The withholding agent is liable only insofar as he failed to
perform his duty to withhold the tax and remit the same to the government. The liability
for the tax, however, remains with the taxpayer because the gain was realized and received
by him.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (MPC)

Facts Government:

Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (MPC) is a domestic firm engaged in the generation of power which
it sells to the National Power Corporation (NPC). In the light of the NPCs tax exempt status,
MPC, on the belief that its sale of power generation services to NPC. On August 25, 1998, MPC,
while awaiting approval of its application aforestated, filed its quarterly VAT return for the
second quarter of 1998 where it reflected an input VAT of PhP 148,003,047.62, which included
PhP 135,993,570. Pursuant to the procedure prescribed in Revenue Regulations No. 7-95, MPC
filed on an administrative claim for refund of unutilized input VAT in the amount of PhP
148,003,047.62.
Since the BIR Commissioner failed to act on its claim for refund and obviously to forestall the
running of the two-year prescriptive period under Sec. 229 of the Nationa

Facts Taxpayer:
The Government though the Commission of Internal Revenue asserted that MPCs claim for
refund cannot be granted for this main reason: MPCs sale of electricity to NPC is not zero-rated
for its failure to secure an approved application for zero-rating.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent [MPC] is entitled to the refund of its input VAT payments made from
1993 to 1996
Ruling:
Creditable input VAT is an indirect tax which can be shifted or passed on to the buyer,
transferee, or lessee of the goods, properties, or services of the taxpayer. The fact that the
subsequent sale or transaction involves a wholly-tax exempt client, resulting in a zero-rated or
effectively zero-rated transaction, does not, standing alone, deprive the taxpayer of its right to a
refund for any unutilized creditable input VAT, albeit the erroneous, illegal, or wrongful payment
angle does not enter the equation.
It is clear that Sec. 112(A) of the NIRC, providing a two-year prescriptive period reckoned from
the close of the taxable quarter when the relevant sales or transactions were made pertaining to
the creditable input VAT, applies to the instant case, and not to the other actions which refer to
erroneous payment of taxes.

PEN:
BIR and other tax agencies of their duty to treat claims for refunds and tax credits with proper
attention and urgency.
Zero-rated transactions generally refer to the export sale of goods and supply of services. The tax
rate is set at zero. When applied to the tax base, such rate obviously results in no tax chargeable
against the purchaser. The seller of such transactions charges no output tax, but can claim a
refund of or a tax credit certificate for the VAT previously charged by suppliers

Taganito Mining Corporation v. CIR

Facts Government:
Taganito is a duly-registered Philippine corporation and a VAT-registered entity primarily
engaged in the business of exploring, extracting, mining, selling, and exporting precious metals
and their byproducts. For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of the year 2004, Taganito filed its
Quarterly VAT Returns. Taganito filed before the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) an
administrative claim for the refund of input VAT paid on its domestic purchases of taxable
goods and services and importation of goods during the entire year of 2004. 51 days after the
filing of its application with the CIR, Taganito filed with the CTA a petition for review. The
Government through the BIR avers that that the petition for review was prematurely filed
because Taganito did not wait for the lapse of 120 days mandated by Section 112(D) of the
National Internal Revenue Code

Issue:
The issue was whether or not Taganito’s judcial claim was prematurely filed.

Ruling:
The Court held that the two-year period under Section 229 does not apply to claims for a refund
or tax credit for unutilized creditable input VAT because it is not considered ‘excessively’
collected. Instead, San Roque settled that Section 112 applies to claims for a refund or tax credit
for unutilized creditable input VAT, thereby making the 120+ 30 day period prescribed therein
mandatory and jurisdictional in nature

PEN:
the two-year period under Section 229 does not apply to claims for a refund or tax credit for
unutilized creditable input VAT because it is not considered ‘excessively’ collected
Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership vs. CIR
Facts Government:
Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership sold its fully depreciated Nissan Patrol,