COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AYALA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2053 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9298) Petitioner, -versus- Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS -LIBAN , MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, fl. AYALA PROPERTY Promulgated: MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 0 9 2021 Respondent. )( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )( RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L_: For the Court's resolution is petitioner Commissioner Internal Revenue's (petitioner's/CIR's) "Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Decision dated July 07, 202o] 111 (MPR), filed on 28 July 2020, without respondent Ayala Property Management Corporation's (respondent's/APMC's) comment per Records Verification Report , dated 07 December 202o.2 Petitioner seeks the reversal of this Courtp Rollo, pp. I03- 123. ld., p. 135.

CTA EB NO. 2053 CIR v. AYALA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION X---------------------------------------------------- X Decision3 in the above-captioned case dated 07 July 2020. The dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Petitioner's disallowance of out- of-period tax credits is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, respondent's income tax overpayment for the taxable year 2009 is REDUCED by 1'2,574,599�19 corresponding to the said out-of-period tax credits. SO ORDERED. In support of his MPR, petitioner belabors that he was denied due process particularly on the issue of disallowed tax credits as he was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his findings. Likewise, petitioner insists that the Court erred in not ruling that his findings on the disallowed tax credit have yet to attain finality after respondent failed to refute the same. Petitioner also contends that respondent's deficiency tax assessment arising from unaccounted income has legal basis as it was a result of the matching of Summary List of Purchases (SLP) of third parties vis-a-vis Summary List of Sales (SLS) of respondent, contrary to the Court's findings. Petitioner thus prays that the assailed Decision be modified to instead declare respondent liable for deficiency taxes in the aggregate amount ofP7,70o,oo9.70, plus surcharges, penalties and interests. We resolve. A careful perusal of petitioner's present MPR readily reveals that the arguments raised herein are mere reiterations of the basic issues in the prior Petition for Review before Us. As shown in the assailed Decision, the Court En Bane has already considered, passed upon and exhaustively discussed these issues/ Id., pp. 83-98.

CTA EB NO. 2053 CIR v. AYALA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION X---------------------------------------------------- X In one case\ the Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration for failing to raise substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the consideration sought, viz: The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convice the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justifY the reconsideration sought.5 WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Decision dated July 07, 2020] is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Court's Decision dated 07 July 2020 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~ JEAN MARIJYN}frKt'ORRO-VILLENA 4 Shangri-la International Hotel Management, Ltd., et a/. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., G.R. No. 159938, 22 January 2007. Citation omitted and emphasis supplied.

CTA EB NO. 2053 CIR v. AYALA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION X---------------------------------------------------- X WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice S2-.u~C- a.T~ 9.. ERL~.UY JUANITO c. CASTANEDA, 'JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice rg I """\n<tQin ff't"i ou~~ o,�n"�O'l ~- ~ A (.._____ ~�/":.~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice