COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SM INVESTMENTS CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 2707 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Ca se No. 9569) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. SM INVESTMENTS Promulgated: CORPORATION, JUL 3 0 202~ Respondent. )C- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -)C RESOLUTION . MANAHAN, J.: This resolves petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsider- ation [re: Decision dated 16 January 2024)1 ("Motion") filed on February 5, 2024, with respondent's Comment filed on March 18, 2024.2 In the Decision dated January 16, 2024 ("assailed Decision"),3 the Court En Bane denied the Petition for Review filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") on November 2 , 2022.4 The assailed Decision affirmed the Court in Division's Amended Decision dated March 11, 20225 and Resolution dated September 27, 2022,6 which partially granted 1 Docket, pp. 77-85. 2 Docket, pp. 90-94 . 3 Docket, pp. 60-70. 4 Docket, pp. 6-13. s Doc ket, pp. 28-38 [Per J. Erli~ P. Uy, Third Divis ion]. 6 Docket, pp. 41-44. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2707 (CTA Case No. 9569) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. SM Investments Corporation respondent SM Investments Corporation's claim for refund, VIZ: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing consideration, the instant Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner the amount of 1"296, 152, 179.59, representing petitioner's excess and unutilized Creditable Withholding Tax for calendar year ended December 31, 2014. SO ORDERED. In the present Motion, petitioner seeks that the Court En Bane reconsider the above ruling and render another one denying respondent's entire claim for refund. The Motion is hinged on the sole argument that respondent failed to comply with the documentary requirements set forth under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 53-98 and Revenue Regula- tions (RR) No. 2-2006. Without the documents enumerated therein, the link between the income payment and the creditable withholding taxes (CWTs) claimed as refund cannot be established. In its Comment, respondent submits that RMO No. 53-98 and RR No. 2-2006 are inapplicable to its case. The former is directed at revenue officers rather than taxpayers, while the latter is not related to the requirements for a valid claim of excess CWTs. Moreover, petitioner's failure to identify the specific documentary requirements that respondent allegedly failed to comply which renders the Motion pro forma. We agree with respondent. At the outset, petitioner's arguments have already been exhaustively discussed, passed upon, and rejected by the Court. Again, RMO No. 53-98 and RR No. 2-2006 do not provide that non-submission of the documents enumerated therein ipso facto results in the outright denial of the taxpayer's refund claim. Since petitioner did not present any new or different argument to convince us otherwise, we find no more need to belabor the point.~---

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2707 (CTA Case No. 9569) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. SM Investments Corporation A motion for reconsideration is deemed pro forma when it does not specify the findings or conclusions in the assailed judgment which are unsupported by evidence or are contrary to law.7 Rule 37, Section 2 of the Rules of Court expressly instructs: Section 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof - The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party. A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal. In Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations,s the Supreme Court further explained that it is not enough that a motion for reconsideration states what part of the decision is contrary to evidence or law; it should also point out why it is so. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is precisely to convince the court that its main decision is erroneous, although the movant may dwell upon the points already raised and passed upon, there must be a bona fide effort to explain where and why the court should be regarded as having erred. Here, as respondent observed, petitioner made no reference to the evidence tending to prove non-compliance with RMO No. 53-98 and RR No. 2-2006. The alleged unsubmitted documents were not even identified. Thus, even assuming that there is merit in petitioner's contention, there is no way for the Court to determine whether respondent indeed failed to submit the documents required for its refund claim. 7 Marikina Valley Development Corporation v. Han. Napoleon R. Flojo, G.R. No. 110801, December 8, 1995 [J. Feliciano, En Bane]. s G.R. No. L-16682, July 26, 1963 [Per J. Regala, En Bane].~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2707 (CTA Case No. 9569) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. SM Investments Corporation ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's Motion for Partial Recon- sideration [re: Decision dated 16 January 2024} filed on February 5, 2024 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~~ 7- ~...<<(..l.o.t.~- - - CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~- ~ -v'-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice \. MARIAR(j) I Ass ~ 9-.u.. If ~ - ~�~ MARIAN IVU. REYI�1s:FAJ'ARDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2707 (CTA Case No. 9569) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. v. SM Investments Corporation C-~~~RES Associate Justic~ HENRY ~GELES Associate Justice