BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LILIBETH RAMOS ARAGON On-Line Janitorial Services No. 134 Kamias Road, East Kamias Quezon City (AT-LARGE)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0-903 Plaintiff, (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-201- 00239) -versus- For: Violation of Sec. 255 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended (Willful Failure to Pay Deficiency Income Tax) Members: RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and LILIBETH RAMOS ARAGON, FERRER-FLORES, JJ On-Line Janitorial Services No. 134 Kamias Road, East Kamias, Promulgated: Quezon City (AT LARGE), Accused OCT 08 202y X --------------------------------------------------------------?--V~-:--t--t-t--~------ X RESOLUTION For the Court's resolution is plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated August 09, 2024), filed on August 30, 2024. The Motion assails the Court's Resolution, dated August 9, 2024, which revived this case from archives but dismissed it for prescription. Through the Motion, plaintiff insists that the period for prescription was suspended during the pandemic lockdowns, in light of the various Supreme Court and Bureau of Internal Revenue ("BIR") issues on the matter. The Motion lacks merit. First, plaintiffs position finds no basis in the Supreme Court's COVID- 19 issuances. These consistently extended the deadline for periods that fell due on specific dates. Administrative Circulars ("AC') Nos. 35-2020 & 39- 2020, for example, only affected deadlines falling within April 27, 2020 to May 31, 2020. No such issuance extended the period for filing pleadings due on April 28, 2022, however. As such, the Supreme Court's extension of deadlines during the pandemic is irrelevant to the case at bar.

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0-903 Page 2of2 Operations Memorandum ("OM') No. 66-2022 is similarly inapplicable here. The issuance mentions the statute of limitations for the "collection of internal revenue taxes through... a proceeding in court." However, said statute oflimitations is the one "pursuant to" Section 223 ofthe National Internal Revenue Code of1997, as amended ("NIRC'), and the court proceedings here are mentioned alongside "distraint and/or levy." Importantly, Section 223 ofthe NIRC covers the suspension ofthe running of the prescriptive period for assessments and the collection of taxes, distinct from Section 281 of the NIRC' s provision of a prescriptive period for prosecuting violations of the NIRC. The court proceedings covered by OM No. 66-2022 thus refer to civil remedies for the collection of taxes. The Memorandum does not cover the prosecution of violations of the NIRC. Consequently, its extension of prescriptive periods cannot be applied here. The same is also true of the "various revenue issuances" cited. Revenue Regulations Nos. 07-2020, 10-2020, & 11-2020 cover submissions by taxpayers to the BIR, not prescriptive periods applicable to the BIR's own actions. Like OM No. 66-2022 , meanwhile, Revenue Memorandum Circulars Nos. 034-2020, 074-2020, 136-2020, 052-2021, 80-2021, & 93-2021 all deal with the statute of limitations covered by Sections 203, 222, & 223 of the NIRC but not that under Section 281 of the NIRC. As such, these issuances cover the prescriptive periods for assessment and collection, not that for the prosecution of violations of the NIRC. Given that plaintiffs arguments are not actually relevant to the issue at hand, the reasoning in the assailed Resolution stands unchallenged. There is thus no need to set aside Our dismissal of this case. ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs Motion fo r Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated August 09, 2024), filed on August 30, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution, dated August 9, 2024, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~- ~ "-?'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ' Lea..re) CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice