AECOM PHILIPPINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPU BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC AECOM PH ILIPPINES, INC., CTA E B NO. 2653 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 10007) Present -versus- Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes- Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,Jl COMMISSIONER OF INTE RNAL Promulgated: REVEN UE, Respondent. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1-----------------x RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, L For resolution of the Court En Bancis petitioner Aecom Philippines, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution datedJune 07, 2023/ flied on June 29, 2023. In a Resolution dated August 15, 2023, this Court required respondent to file his comment or opposition to petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: ReJ�olution dated June 07, 2023) within five (5) days from receipt thereof. Respondent, however, failed to f.tle the required comment or opposition as per the Records Verification Report dated October 10, 2023 submitted by this Court's Judicial Records Division. Petitioner's Motionfor Reconsideration (Re: Resolution datedJune 07, 2023) seeks reconsideration of the Decision of the Court En Bam� promulgated on June 7, ~ 1 Court En Banes Docket, pp. 127-156.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2653 (CTA Case No. 10007) 2023,2 ("Assailed Decision'') affinning the judgment of the First Division ("Court in Division") of this Court in CTA Case No. 10007. The Assailed Decision denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit. In its Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution datedJune 07, 2023), petitioner asserts that it was able to present its annual income tax returns (ITR) for 2014 and 2015 to prove income payments upon which taxes were withheld and that the same were included as part of its gross revenue declared in its ITRs. According to petitioner, it likewise presented its Project Performance Reports (PPRs) for FYs 2014 to 2016. These are the source documents which list in detail the revenue recognized by petitioner in accordance with the percentage of completion method as well as the billings made by it, per contract, as identified by Project Contract Code (PCC). Petitioner also points out that these are the source report from which the information in the AFS and ITRs are sourced. Petitioner also postulates that in all of its previous pleadings, it painstakingly demonstrated the tracing procedure that should be done to detennine how income payments received by petitioner are eventually reported in the gross income as shown in its ITRs and Audited Financial Statements (AFS). 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 Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated June 07, 2023) for lack of merit. Petitioner merely recycled the arguments it raised in its Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution datedJune 07, 2023) 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 the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution datedJune 07, 2023) that was not sufficiendy passed upon by the Court En Bane. At any rate, the Court En Bane maintains its ruling that petitioner failed to point out the exact years when the respective income payments were reported. Petitioner also failed to present as evidence its AFS and Annual ITRs for years other than 2016 and 2017 in order for this Court to at least verify whether the gross income in such other years contained the time difference being alleged. An evaluation of evidence on record shows that this Court still cannot detennine completely the amount of refund being claimed. Thus, a partial grant is still not warranted. This Court's position as regards the collateral matters raised by petitioner in its Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated June 07, 2023) were already discussed in the Assailed Decision and the same need not be repeated here. ~ 2 !d., pp. 79-90.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2653 (CTA Case No. 10007) 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 (Re: Resolution dated June 07, 2023) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. a-,. 4c,L,.-. ..__ '-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR� (On Leave) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice c~. r. _A'.--.-.4-lfe.---- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ('" ~~ JEAN MAR ACORRO-VILLENA te Justice MARIARO ~ ~F.' ~-f~�~ :p MARIAN I~ REYES~AJARDO Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2653 (CTA Case No. 10007) LAN~u~im Associate Justice coR1A1Zl>~:N/G.. ,' s F Associate Justice HENARss~~~~G~EriLceES