GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane GOLDEN DONUTS, INC., CTA EB NO. 2861 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 9676) Present: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Acting P.J , MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, Respondent. DEC 1 1 2025 X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resoluti on is petitioner's Motion for R econsideration (of the Decision dated 25 J uly 2025), fil ed on August 13, 2025, with respondent's Comment/Opposition (to Petitioner 's Motion for Reconsideration), filed on September 3, 2025. Petitioner, through its Motion, assails this Court En Bane's Decision, dated July 25, 2025, which denied the present Petition for Review. It argues that (1) respondent was mandated to issue a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment ("FDDA") in response to petitioner's protest to the Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD"), so respondent's issuance of the 201 7 Run After Tax Evaders ("RATE") Letter of Authority ("LOA") contravened his own rules; and (2) respondent should have actually proved his finding of fraud during judicial proceedings. f Respondent counters the above by claiming that his issuance of the RATE LOA was justified, given his finding of fraud.

RI:SOU TIO" CT A EB No_ 286! (CTA Case No. 9676} Page 2 of3 We cannot grant the Motion. First, that respondent did not issue a FDDA does not contravene the rules governing assessments. There are well-established instances where respondent's non-issuance of a FDDA does not constitute grave abuse of discretion or a violation of procedure. This is, in fact, the default status for respondent's inaction: the same allows the taxpayer to raise a judicial appeal before this Court, as it is effectively deemed a denial of the protest, not a grave abuse of discretion. The Court must thus reject petitioner's first argument. As for the second argument, We note that even assuming arguendo that respondent was required to prove the prima facie finding of fraud before the Court in Division, the issuance of a RATE LOA is also justified by a finding of irregularities, as explained in Honorable Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro- Villena' s Concurring Opinion to the assailed Decision and earlier Decision in CTA Case No. 9676. Petitioner's argument does not address this, so Our affirmation of the Court in Division's findings still stands. In sum, We cannot grant the instant petition. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 25 July 2025), filed on August 13, 2025, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision, dated July 25, 2025, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice hi~{~~J ~. ' At��" .. /. --'s Dissenting Opinion. With due respect, I maifr"/;n my vote CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOUTIO:\ CTA EB No_ 2861 (CTA Case 1\o. 9676) Page 3 of3 -VILLENA ~ f1.1 u (-: f-v.....J4. - F~�t�\p~.,~. MARIAN fvYJ F. REYES~FAJA'Roo Associate Justice LA~W~vm Associate Justice With due respect, I mCOa;i~~ftb~'v~~.jFERmRnEg Rr- .J.. s Dissenting Opinion. RES Associate Justice vo~tning With due respect, I maintain my (ret.) P.J 's Dissenting Opinion. HENRYS. ANGELES Associate Justice