COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BW SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 2254 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9448) Petitioner, Present: -versus- Del Rosario, P.J., Castaneda,] r., Uy, Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, and Cui-David, fl. BW SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. Promulgated: Respondent. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-------------x RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, ]d For resolution of the Court En Bane is petitioner Commissioner of Y Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration (to the Decision dated 29 October 2021 flied via registered mail on November 19, 2021 and received by the Court on December 6, 2021, with respondent BW Shipping Philippines, Inc.'s Comment/ Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated October 29, 2021J flied on April 25, 2022. Petitioner's Motion seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Bane promulgated on October 29, 2021,3 ("Assailed Decision") affirming the ~ 1 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 107-116. 2 !d., pp. 128-142. 3 !d., pp. 70-85.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2254 (CTA case No. 9448) judgment of the First Division ("Court in Division'') of this Court in CTA Case No. 9448. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated September 23, 2019 and the Resolution dated February 19, 2020 of the First Division in CTA Case No. 9448 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." In his Motion, petitioner maintains that the Court in Division erred in holding that the recipient of respondent's services are foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines.4 Petitioner also claims that the Court in Division erred in not finding that: (1) respondent is a local agent of the foreign corporations; (2) respondent exercises control and supervision over the complements of its foreign principals; and (3) respondent conducts business in the name of its foreign principals as shown in the agreements between the respondent and each of its foreign principals. On the other hand, respondent, in its Comment/ Opposition submits that the Motion merely reiterates the arguments in the Petition for Review which were already rejected by this Court.5 Respondent also maintains that it has duly proved that its foreign principals are nonresident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines. Respondent likewise asserts that it is not a local agent and/or representative of its foreign principals. After careful evaluation of the arguments raised by petitioner vis-a-vis the records of the case, the Court En Bane resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for lack of merit. Petitioner merely recycled the arguments he raised in his Motion as these matters had already been thoroughly discussed and resolved by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. To put it blundy, there is nothing in his Motion that was not sufficiendy passed upon by the Court En Bane. At any rate, the Court En Bane maintains its position that the documents presented by respondent sufficiendy proved that the recipient of its services were foreign entities not doing business in the Philippines. The Court En Bane likewise stands by its ruling that respondent cannot be considered as agent of its foreign clients. Respondent simply renders manning or crewing services to foreign shipping companies and, in doing so, respondent merely screens competent and qualified Filipino seaman for employment onboard the vessels of the foreign shipping companies~ 4 /d., p. 109. 5 !d., p. 129.

RESOLUTION CfA EB No. 2254 (CfA Case No. 9448) In sum, petitioner failed to raise any compelling reason to warrant the modification much less reversal of this Court's findings in the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (to the Decision dated 29 October 2021) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Q!v. ~ -4- (________ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR� (I cOiiCUrinthe- result and siile!J on the grounds stated in the Court in Division's Decision) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~..........�~ C!. a..Ja......�.4 /~. j{JANITO C. CASTANEI)K, jR. Associate Justice ERL~.UY Associate Justice c...a-...;:r.~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

RESOLUTION erA EB No. 2254 (erA case No. 9448) Page 4 of4 JEAN !Vll\.IVL ..- ' 01\.\...VKKV-VILLENA ~ ~f~.t:~ MARIAN 1\/:J F. REh:S-FAJARDO Associate Justice lau~tf~t{ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice