COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SONOMA SERVICES, INCORPORATED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1997 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9249) Petitioner, P rese nt: DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , CASTANEDA, JR., -versus- UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and SONOMA SERVICES, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, ]]. INCORPORATED, PromulgatOdJ 2020 v N0 X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R-e-s-po- n- d- e-n-t.- - ------- ---- -(../.P=/d(:Jk:_:f'-y-.---..X.., RE SOLUT ION RINGPIS-LIBAN,.L: This resolves Petitioner's "I\tfotion for Reconsideration"1 filed on July 30, 2020, with Respondent's "Comment (RE: Motion for Reco nsideration dated July 30, 2020)"2 ("Comment") filed on October 05, 2020, seeking to set aside the Decision3 promulgated on June 29, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"), and another one be rendered denying Respondent's claim for refund of Php4,733,500.00. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated February 1, 2019 ftled by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DENIED. The impugned Decision dated August 15, 2018 an~ Rollo, pp. 100-108. 2 Id., pp. 112-130. 3 !d., pp. 82-92.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1997 (CTA Case No. 9249) Resolution dated January 4, 2019 rendered by the Court in Division are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner claims that a claim for refund requires that a payment to the government must first be positively proven, in the absence of which there is nothing to refund to a claiming party. Since Respondent is the one claiming that it is entided to a refund, it is incumbent upon the taxpayer to prove that, not only withholding of taxes have been made, but more importandy, that a prior payment of taxes has been made to the government. Petitioner also contends that the failure of Petitioner to object to the presentation of hearsay evidence does not deprive the Court of its wisdom to fairly evaluate the materiality, relevancy, and probative value to the issues involved in this case. Lasdy, Petitioner maintains that mere presentation of Certificates of Creditable withholding Tax Withheld at source (BIR Forms No. 2307) as conclusive grounds to grant the refund is anathema to the strict construction against the claiming party. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, states that the arguments raised by Petitioner in his arc merely rehash, and as such the motion should be dismissed outright for being pro-forma. Notably, Petitioner, Respondent argues, failed to cite any error that may serve as basis for the reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. We find for Respondent. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments he has raised in his "Petition for Review". Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. ~ 4 !d., p. 91.

RESOLUTION ~- ~ _#~ erA EB No. 1997 (erA Case No. 9249) Page 3 of 3 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN SO ORDERED. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 5h-..Z:: C. cJ-~~ I Q_ . ON LEAVE JuANITO C. CASTANED}\, JR. ERLINDAP. UY Associate Justice Associate Justice ~p;~ "" CATHERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN !V.Llll\..1,13' l!r.t\.\..VK:R:U.::-VILLENA Associate Justice