COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES PHILIPPINE BRANCH

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 1489 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8601) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., - versus - BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FASON-VICTORINO I MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN I ]]. LUFTHANSA GERMAN Promulgated: AIRLINES - Philippine Branch, APR 1 2 2018 /o:..rt a..~. Respondent. -----------~-X x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, J.: In its Motion for Reconsideration1 filed on October 26, 2017, petitioner assails the Decision promulgated on October 3, 2017, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on August 11, 2016 is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated March 21, 2016 and June 27, 2016, respectively, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. / 1 En Bane docket, pp . 102-106.

Resolution CTA EB NO. 1489 The assailed Decision sustained the ruling of the Court in Division ordering the cancellation of the assessment issued by petitioner against respondent for taxable year 2008. Petitioner claims that: 1. The Court erred in ruling that a prior application for tax treaty relief before a taxpayer may enjoy the relief under Philippine tax treaties is not mandatory; and 2. The Court erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to preferential tax rate of 1. 5�/o mandated under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty. By way of Comment2 , respondent contends that the arguments advanced by petitioner have already been considered and found wanting by the Court in Division, and on appeal, by the Court En Bane. Be that as it may, respondent agrees with the Court En Bane that a prior application for tax treaty relief before a taxpayer may enjoy the relief provided under Philippine tax treaties is not mandatory. After going over the allegations in the subject Motion for Reconsideration as well as the argumentations set-forth by the parties, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from its ruling in the assailed Decision of October 3, 2017. The motion has not raised any new or substantial ground justifying a departure from the previous finding and conclusion of the Court. To be sure, all the arguments raised by petitioner had already been passed upon, amply discussed, and considered by the Court En Bane in the assailed Decision. In fine, there is no reason nor rhyme for the Court En Bane to set aside or even modify the assailed Decision of October 3, 2017. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated October 3, 2017) filed by petitioner 2 En Bane docket, pp. 115-119.

Resolution CTA EB NO. 1489 Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED, for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED. We Concur: ROMAN G. D L ROSARIO Presiding Justice 2.. ~o-tA1h c.~~/ LOVELL~. BAUTISTA JuANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ER~P. UY (On Leave) Associate Justice CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice ~ ~ M~~.. ~G~ , CIELITO N~ Mil\fDARO-GRULLA ~. ~ .4 '- Associate Justice MA. BELEN RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice