COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2748 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No . 9896) Petitioner, Present: -versu s- DEL ROSARIO , P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN , MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO , REYES-FAJARDO, � CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. NEW YORK BAY Promulgated : PHILIPPINES, INC., OCT 0 1 2024 Respondent. }{- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: For th is Cou rt's resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated April 18, 2024)1 filed on May 9, 2024, with resp ondent's Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated May 7, 2024)2 filed on June 4, 2024. Petition er prays tha t th e D ecision da ted April 18, 2024 (assailed D ecision) be reversed and set aside. The dispositive portion of th e assailed Decision reads: WHEREFORE, all things considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Amended Decision dated September 12, 2022, and the Resolution,dated 1 En Bane (EB) Docket, pp. 112-11 8. 2 /d. , pp. 120-125.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2748 (CTA Case No. 9896) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. New York Bay Philippines, Inc. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x March 14, 2023, promulgated by the Court's Special Third Division in CTA Case No. 9896, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Petitioner reiterates that respondent failed to submit additional documents required by the revenue officer assigned to its administrative claim for refund. As such, respondent's judicial claim should be denied for its failure to substantiate its refund claim at the administrative level, under Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014. Petitioner argues that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions and are to be construed in strictissimi juris against the entity claiming the same. Respondent maintains that it has complied with the mandatory requirements under RMC No. 54-2014 when it submitted, together with its administrative claim for refund of excess and unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) for the four (4) quarters of calendar year (CY) 2016, a cover letter indicating the submission of its supporting documents and a sworn certification stating that it submitted complete documents for purposes of processing its claim for VAT refund for CY 2016. Respondent contends that petitioner did not dispute respondent's attachment of the said sworn statement attesting to the completeness of the submitted documents but merely insisted that respondent's documents were not yet complete. Respondent further argues that petitioner failed to specify the alleged missing documents from respondent and only focused on the allegation that respondent failed to submit the complete documents for its administrative claim. Respondent concludes that this bare and unsubstantiated allegation deserves scant consideration from this Court. The Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. Petitioner's argument that respondent's application for refund or tax credit should be denied for failure to submit the complete supporting documents, as required under RMC No. 54-2014, had already been held untenable by the Court in Division, which the Court En Bane affirmed in the assailed Decision, viz.: Thus, the Court is convinced that respondent is entitled to its claim as it overcame the strict scrutiny on tax refunds against it. On the other hand, aside from perfunctorily quoting the provisions of the law and regulations, petitioner failed to

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2748 (CTA Case No. 9896) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. New York Bay Philippines, Inc. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X present sufficient evidence to rebut the above conclusion of the Court in Division. As aptly held by the Court in Division:3 The Court finds no reason to revisit its findings thereon since respondent failed to pinpoint specific evidence, such as official receipts or sales invoices, which the Court should not have favorably considered, or that which the Court erroneously considered as compliant with the invoicing requirements provided under the law, rules, and regulations. Hence, the Court cannot give credence to respondent's bare allegations and general statements without proof to debunk the findings of the Court. Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, z.e., mere allegations are not evidence. As such, the reversal of the assailed Amended Decision and the assailed Resolution is unwarranted and must perforce be denied. All told, petitioner's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration do not provide compelling or sufficient reason to modify, much less set aside, the said assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated April 18, 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. kuMatn/if LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~-~ ..,....____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 3 Resolution dated March 14. 2023, EB Docket. p. 78.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2748 (CTA Case No. 9896) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. New York Bay Philippines, Inc. X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X CJ4t.-,. /- 4<-..--�~~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 0-VILLENA te Justice ~ ~ f ~-fq,/~ rvvG-. MARIAN REYES-FA.n\RDO Associate Justice ON LEAVE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice HENRY JPA.NGELES Associate Justice