HON. COMMISSIONER KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES, HON. RICARDO B. ESPIRITU, REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER, REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICE NO. 50 v. IP CONTACT CENTER OUTSOURCING , INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUErzON CITY ENBANC HON. COMMISSIONER KIM CTA EB No. 1415 S. JACINTO-HENARES, HON. (CTA Case No. 8537) RICARDO B. ESPIRITU, .... Revenue District Officer, Present: Revenue District Office No. 50, Petitioners, Del Rosario, P.J., Castaneda, Jr., Bautista, Uy, Casanova, Fabon-Victorino, Mindaro-Grulla, Ringpis-Liban, and Manahan,JJ. -versus- IP CONTACT CENTER Promulgated: OUTSOURCING, INC., Respondent. x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: For resolution of the Court En Bane is the Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision dated 05 June 2017) 1 filed by respondent IP Contact Center Outsourcing, Inc. on July 25, 2017. Respondent's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision2 of the Court En Bane promulgated on June 5, 2017, (the "assailed Decision") which granted the Petition for Rev[ew filed by the Commissioner of Internal J<- Revenue (CIR) and, accordingly, set aside the Decision dated September 10, 1 Court En Bane's Docket, pp. 173-180. 2/d. , pp. 138-166.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1415 (CTA Case No. 8537) Page 2 of5 2015 and the Resolution dated De ember 15, 2015 promulgated by the Third Division of this Court (Court in Di ision) in CTA Case No. 8537. The dispositive portion of th assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, he Petition for Review is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 10, 2015 and the Resolution dated December 15, 2015 promulgated by the Third Division of this Court areS T ASIDE. Let this case be RE ANDED to the Court in Division for complete determinatio of respondent's deficiency tax liabilities for taxable year 2 07. SO ORDERED." Respondent moves for reco sideration of the assailed Decision on the ground that: "THE HONORABLE CO T COMMITTED A SERIOUS, GRAVE BUT REVERSIB E ERROR WHEN IT GRANTED THE PETITION FOR VIEW AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CO T IN DIVISION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S TAX LIABILITY FOR THE YE R 2007."3 Respondent, in its Motio for Reconsideration, contends that the waivers dated November 2, 2010 nd May 2, 2011, respectively, were fatally flawed for failure to specify the a ount of tax due, which is a clear violation ofRMO No. 20-90 in relation to AO No. 05-01.4 Respondent also claims that it is not estopped to question he validity of the waivers and that in pari delicto doctrine should not be app ied in the present case.5 The Court En Bane res lves to deny respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. A careful review of the c se records and the arguments raised by respondent in its Motion for R consideration reveals that the arguments relied upon are matters which ha e already been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Court En B nc in the assailed Decision. Respondent failed to raise any new or substa tial matter or any compelling reason that ~ 3 !d., p. 174. 4 !d., p. 175. 5 !d., p. 176-177.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1415 (CTA Case No. 8537) Page 3 of5 will justify reversal or even modi 1cation of the Court En Bane's findings. Nevertheless, the Court En Bane hall state below a few points, if only to reinforce its discussion in the assai ed Decision. The Court En Bane finds n reason to reverse its ruling as the factual milieu of the present case are sim lar to those in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc. ormerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.). 6 In both cases, there were se eral waivers with defects that arose from the fault or negligence of both e taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). As the Court En B nc explained in the assailed Decision: "In the present case, oth the petitioners and respondent are in pari delicto. The resp ndent executed the subject waiver in consideration of the o portunity to gather and submit documents to substantiate a d defend its case before the BIR at the investigation stage. At the same time, by virtue of the waiver, respondent was able to postpone the payment of subject taxes assessed against it. A d yet, after enjoying such benefits, respondent readily challeng d the validity of the waiver when the effects thereofwere not �nits favor. Verily, respondent's act of impugning the subject w iver after benefitting therefrom and allowing the CIR to rely the eon is an act of bad faith. On the other hand, th CIR was also remiss in its duty of faithfully complying with it own issuances. The CIR ought to ensure that all of the requir ments for the execution of a valid waiver are carefully and co pletely followed. But as found by the Court in Division, the 1st waiver executed by the parties failed to strictly follow the rescribed format as required under RMO No. 20-90 by failing t specify the amount of tax due. Considering that a w iver of statute of limitations is, in law and in fact, a bilateral greement between the CIR and the taxpayer, both of them s ould thus be held responsible in ensuring that their agreeme t faithfully complies with the law. Failing which, they should b th suffer the consequences. In the same vein, res ondent did not come to the court with clean hands. It cannot e allowed to benefit from the flaws of its own waiver and insists on its invalidity to evade its obligation to pay deficienc taxes, when in committing such flaws, the respondent itself i partly to blame. ~ 6 G.R. No. 212825, December 7, 2015.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1415 (CTA Case No. 8537) Page 4 of5 Moreover, responde t is likewise estopped from challenging the validity o the subject waiver. Respondent allowed petitioners to rely n the waiver they have executed and kept mum on the waive 's defect. Respondent did not raise any objection against the aiver's validity up until it was already assessed with ficiency taxes and penalties." (Citations omitted) WHEREFORE, respond nt's Motion for Reconsideration IS DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~'"C-~~� JtJANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR: Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I reiterate my Con ing Opini n) LOVEL~ R. BAUTISTA ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Associate Justice Presiding Justice F .. CAESAR A. CASANOVA . ,.,~ ~ .:c .j,Disi'<Nr Associate Justice ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1415 (CTA Case No. 8537) Page 5 of5 , r . If II f.a.Jar� N, M~-6~ 'tffiLiTO N. INDARO-GRULLA -?! '- ' Dissenting Opinion) . RINGPIS-LIBAN (w.th~d L~b j, 1 ue respect, I._concur /wtthit"'/Y.YJ1 an' s n�1ssent.mg 0 pm. 1.0n) CATHER! E T. MANAHAN Ass ciate Justice