SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, represented by its President and CEO EMILIO S. DE QUIROS, JR. v. ALFREDO V. MISAJON in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, C.T.A. Case No. 8564 represented by its President and CEO EMILIO S . DE QUIROS, JR. , Petitioner, -versus- Members: Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Casanova, and Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ. ALFREDO V. MISAJON in his Capacity as the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau Promulgated: Of Internal Revenue, SEP 042015 Respondent. }(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - }( RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,J.: For resolution is respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration Re: Decision dated June 24, 2015, filed on July 10, 2015, with petitioner's Comment (On Respondent's Motion for Partial Reconsideration Re: Decision dated June 24, 2015), filed on July 31, 2015. Respondent seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, which disposed of the petition, as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED . Accordingly, the assessed basic deficiency withholding tax on compensation, deficiency expanded withholding tax, and deficiency withholding VAT and other percentage tax for taxable year 2004 are upheld but in the modified amount of P67,314,515.98, computed as follows: Tax Type Basic Deficiency Taxes Withholding Tax on Compensation p 23,998,188.36 Expanded Withholding Tax 13,518,496.99

RESOLUTON 29,797 ,830.63 CTA CASE No. 8564 67,3 14 ,515.98 VAT and Other Percentage Tax Withheld TOTAL Furthermore, petitioner shall not be held liable for the interest and penalty, in addition to the basic tax due, pursuant to Sections 247(b) and 251 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended." In its motion, respondent argues that petitioner, as a withholding agent, failed to withhold the correct tax upon its employees' compensation. Respondent also argues that various purchases made by petitioner were not subjected to expanded withholding tax, or the withholding VAT of 3�/o, whichever is applicable. On the other hand, petitioner counters that the grounds raised by respondent have already been considered, addressed, and fully discussed and ruled upon by the Court in the questioned Decision. This Court agrees with petitioner that the grounds raised by respondent are a mere verbatim rehash of its previous arguments and do not merit the modification or reversal of the questioned decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice CONCURS: ~. c . ~~o-< ~ Q - CAESA~ANOVA Associate Justice JUAH"ITO c. CASTANOOA, JR. Associate Justice