COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1227 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8481 ) Petitioner, - versus - Present: DEL ROSARIO, E]. CASTANEDA, JR. BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN,JJ. NOKIA (PHILIPPINES), INC. Promulgated: MAR 17 2017 .3-'3.'P �,__ Respondent. -- ~ X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - -X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, I.: T his resolves petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated August 11, 20161 filed on September 9, 2016 seeking to modify the Decision2 promulgated on August 11, 2016 (assailed Decision). In response thereto, respondent flied its Comment3 on December 20, 2016 The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows: 1 Docket, pp. 126-135. 2 Id. at pp. 104-119. 3 Id. at pp. 141-146.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1227 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby DENIES the instant Petition. The Decision dated July 2, 2014 and Resolution dated September 16, 2014 of the Second Division are hereby AFFIRMED.4 In his motion, petitioner argues that the claim for refund for creditable input VAT should be denied for respondent's failure to establish the recipients of its services are doing business outside the Philippines. After a careful consideration of the ground raised in the motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that the issues and arguments raised therein had already been amply discussed, passed upon and considered by this Court in the assailed Decision. Petitioner's arguments constitute neither compelling nor cogent reason to modify, much less reverse our Decision dated August 11, 2016. We reiterate our finding that- There is no evidence presented before the Court showing that respondent's client has an existing business in the Philippines. The Court's conclusion must be based on facts. Hence, we cannot conclude, based on Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements, that respondent's client is doing business in the Philippines. We can, however, and so hold that respondent duly proved that its client is a nonresident foreign corporation based on the following evidence presented in court: (1) Extract From Trade Register issued by the National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland; and (2) Certification of Non-registration of Company issued by the SEC.5 WHEREFORE, premises considered, petltloner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated August 11, 2016 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 4 Docket, p. 118. 5 Id.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1227 (I maintain my Diss ting Opinion) ~h C-Qd-~ ,.5*. ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO JUANITO c. CASTANEfiA,JR. Presiding Justice Associate Justice LOVELL~BAUTISTA ... Associate Justice (I maintain~nting Opinion) CAESAR~OVA ERLINDAP. UY Associate Justice Associate Justice R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice f~ ..n0 t� ~. H~~- 6'~ &~~~1(~ N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice Associate Justice