COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST SUMIDEN CIRCUITS, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTAEB N0.1831 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8924) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J., FIRST SUMIDEN CIRCUITS, INC., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, FABON-VICTORINO, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ]]. Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, .L: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Partial Reco nsideration Re: Decision dated 12 February 2020" 1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on September 02, 2019, with Respondent's "Comment on the .N!otion for Partial Reconsideration dated 4 March 2020"2 flied on July 03, 2020, seeking to partially reverse and set aside the Decision3 promulgated o n February 12, 2020 ("Assailed Decision") and praying that a new one be rendered ordering Respondent to pay the total amount o f Php1 7,655,764.08 representing deficiency income tax for taxable year 2009, as well as compromise penalty, twenty- five percent (25%) surcharge, and twenty percent (20%) deficiency and delinquency interest pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended~ Rollo, pp. 178-188. 2 !d., pp. 192-202. 3 !d., pp. 135-156.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1831 (CTA Case No. 8924) The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on April 18, 2018 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the January 03, 2018 Decision and March 14, 2018 Resolution in CTA Case No. 8924 are AFFIRMED with modifications. Respondent is ORDERED TO PAY THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE AND 48/100 PESOS (Php3,270,593.48) representing deficiency income tax for taxable year 2009, inclusive of twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge imposed under Section 248(B) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest and twenty percent (20%) delinquency interest imposed under Sections 249(A) and (B), respectively, of the same Code, computed until December 31, 2017, which is prior to its amendment under Republic Act No. 10963, otherwise known as the "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law", thus: Taxable Income per Return Special Rate Regular Rate Add: Adjustment 5% 30% Unsupported Importations Taxable Income per Audit Php317,847,439.00 Php8,717,173.00 15,617,731.53 Php333,465,170.53 Php8,717,173.00 Tax Due Special Rate (5%) Php16,673,258.53 Less: Paid to Other Agencies (RA 7916/8748) 6,356,949.00 Tax Due to BIR under Special Rate (5%) Php 10,316,309.53 Tax Due to BIR under Regular Rate (30%) Php2,615,151.90 Aggregate Income Tax Due Php12,931,461.43 Less: Tax Payments/Credits per returns 12,150,57 4.85 Basic Deficiency Income Tax Add: 25% Surcharge Php780,886.58 20% Deficiency Interest from April 16, 195,221.64 2010 to September 30, 2014 697,021.50 [Php780,886.58 x 20% x 1629/365 days] Php1,673,129.72 Total Amount Due, September 30, 508,325.07 2014 20% Deficiency Interest from October 1, / 2014 to December 31,2017 [Php780,886.58 x 20% x 1188/365 days]

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1831 (CTA Case No. 8924) 20% Delinquency Interest from October 1,089,138.69 Php3,270,593.48 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017 [Php1,673,129.72 X 20% X 1188/365 davsl Total Amount Due, December 31, 2017 In addition, respondent is ORDERED TO PAY delinquency interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%), which is double the legal interest rate for loans or forbearance of any money, on the total amount due as of October 01, 2014 in the amount of Php1,673,129.72, as determined above, computed from January 01, 2018 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 10963 and implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 21- 2018. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that the Court erred in ruling that Respondent is not liable for deficiency income tax for taxable year 2009, and compromise penalty on deficiency income tax in the amount of PhpSO,OOO.OO. On the other hand, Respondent maintains that Petitioner's motion must be denied outright because it merely reiterated or rehashed arguments that have already been passed upon and resolved by the Court. We resolve to deny the motion for lack of merit. Apparently, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration is mere recapitulation of the arguments he raised in the Petition for Review filed with this Court, which as We have previously pointed out as also a reproduction of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration he filed before the Court in Division. Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Petitioner also failed to point any specific error and conveniently overlooked the detailed explanation of the Court on the said matter. Thus, to discuss the said explanation of the Court anew is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. ;V 4 !d., pp. 153-155.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1831 (CTA Case No. 8924) WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Partial Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 12 February 2020" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ""' ~ . ~ .....___ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I maintain my Concurri�and Dissenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~~c.~,S:� (I maint~oncurring JtfANITO C. CASTANEDA:, JR. and Dissenting Opinion) Associate Justice ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice CA~ THERI- N~. M" ANAHA~ N � Associate Justice � - 'Djpenting Opinion) BACORRO-VILLENA Associate Justice