COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MCKINSEY & CO. (PHILS.)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2540 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9807) Petitioner, -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes -F ajardo, Cui-D avid, and Ferrer-Flores,]]. MCKINSEY & CO. (PHILS.) Promulgated: Respondent. JUL 2 ~ ~-----f:-<...f/�~ ' X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: For resolution is the petitioner's ":Motion for Reconsideration1 flied on l...'ebruary 27, 2023. In the instant motio n, petitioner avers that the CTA 1~~ Division disregarded the testimony of Revenue Officer joey I. Piansay that the BIR Form 1914 Application for Tax Credits/Refund s for taxable year 2015 was flied belated ly on I\pril 16, 2018; that respondent failed to present as evidence the BIR Form No. 1914 with stamp mark as proof of filing the administrative tax refund with the Bureau o f Internal Revenue (BIR); and that respondent's claim for tax refund for calendar year 201 5 was flied beyond the prescriptive period. The D ecision that the administrative tax refund for taxable year 2015 was filed on time is erroneous. Hence, respondent's claim for refund should be denied. I Rollo, c r.\ I �J~ NO. 2540, pp. 11 4-119.

Page 2 of3 RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2540 On April18, 2023, respondent ftled its "Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration."2 After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Bane resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bane notes that petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et a!. vs. Developers Companies, Inc./ the Supreme Court denied respondent's Group of Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." In view of the foregoing, the Court En Bane will no longer belabor to repeat its discussions in the assailed Decision since it would only result to mere superfluity. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. 'lbiu .� rr- 125-129. ; (;.H.. No. 159938,.January 22. 2007.

Page 3 of 3 ~-~~ RESOLUTION CT.\ EB NO. 2540 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~7.~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ ' ILLENA PEDRO ~ ~ F ~. ~ ftt/QrrA MARIAN iv'J F. RE~S~FAJKRDO Associate Justice lhunaniJ LANEE S. CUI~DAVID Associate Justice C~Lf'Blotl~!yPOO'JmS Associate Justice