IP CONTACT CENTER OUTSOURCING, INC. v. HON. KIM S. JACINTO-HENARES AND HON. NESTOR S. VALEROSO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC IP CONTACT CENTER CTA E B NO . 1492 OUTSOURCING, INC., (CTA Case No. 8605) Petitioner, -versus- HON. KIM S . JACINTO-HENARES and HON. NESTOR S . VALEROSO, Respondents. )(---------------------------------------)( CTA EB NO. 1497 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL (CTA Case No. 8605) REVENUE, Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, F A B O N -VICTORINO , MINDARO-GRULLA, RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MANAHAN, JJ. IP CONTACT CENTER Promulgated: OUTSOURCING, INC., Respondent. OCT 18 2017 .3.' o~ (!P~L . - ~~ ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ){ RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J .: To be resolved before this Court are petitioner IP Contact Center Outsourcing, Inc.'s (IPCCO) Verified Motion for Reconsideration (On Decision dated 04 August 2017)1 filed on September 11, 2017 under CTA EB No. 1492, and petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) Motion t Rollo, CTA EB No. 1492, pp. 284-296.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1492 & 1497 (C.T.A. Case No. 8605) Page 2 of4 for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 4 August 2017)2 filed on September 8, 2017, through registered mail, and received by this Court on September 15, 2017 under CTA EB No. 1497, where the former is seeking for the reversal and setting aside of the August 04, 20 17 En Bane's Decision3 while the latter is seeking for the reconsideration and setting aside of said decision and rendition of a new one instead. The assailed decision denied both Petitions for Review, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, both Petitions for Review are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The April 18, 2016 Decision and July 13, 2016 Resolution, of the CTA Third Division in CTA Case No. 8605, are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner IPCCO also prays for the cancellation of Assessment Notice Nos. IT-LA12555-08-12-0406 and WE- LA12555-08-12-0406 for deficiency Income Tax (IT) and Expanded Withholding Taxes (EWT), respectively, both covering the taxable period 2008. Petitioner IPCCO, under CTA EB No. 1492, avers that it should not be held liable to pay deficiency IT, deficiency EWT and interest. It argues that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) took a very simplistic approach in coming up with the total taxable income and the receipts not subject to income tax in arriving at the alleged deficiency IT by comparing the receipts per books and the receipts per VAT Return. It cited the failure of the BIR to consider the adjusting entries for the year 2008. Furthermore, the alleged deficiency EWT lacks legal basis since the payment was made to Punongbayan and Araullo, a well-known professional services firm and a general professional partnerships (GPP), hence, is exempt from IT and therefore not subject to EWT. Lastly, in its concluding argument, it avers that being not liable to pay said assessed deficiency taxes, there is no legal basis to impose said interest. 2 Rollo., CTA EB No. 1492, pp. 298-302. 3 Id., pp. 257-271.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1492 & 1497 (C.T.A. Case No. 8605) Page 3 of4 As to petitioner CIR, under CTA EB No. 1497, it avers that IPCCO was informed of the law and facts upon which the assessment for deficiency VAT was based and, hence, it must be held liable for the deficiency VAT. It reiterates its previous argument that the letter dated September 26, 2011 from the Finance Accounting Head with attachment of its VAT Analysis relating to its 2008 audit, had formed part of the BIR records, hence, when such letter was elevated to this Court, it became part of the records of the case which the court may consider in deciding the case. The above arguments forwarded by both petitioner IPCCO and petitioner CIR in their respective motions are mere rehash of the issues raised in their previous petitions for review which were all adequately explained and correspondingly disposed of by this Court in the assailed decision. Considering that there are no new issues raised nor positional statements by petitioner IPCCO and petitioner CIR, the instant motions must fail. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner IPCCO's Verified Motion for Reconsideration (On Decision dated 04 August 2017) under CTA EB No. 1492 and petitioner CIR's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 4 August 2017) under CTA EB No. 1497 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Consequently, the August 04, 2017 En Bane's Decision is hereby UPHELD and AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~~(/--~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (I maintain my Concurring (i Dissenting Opinion) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION LOVELL~. BAUTISTA CTA EB Nos. 1492 & 1497 (C.T.A. Case No. 8605) Associate Justice Page 4 of4 ~.h c.a.r~/5;2 JUiNITO C. CASTANEDJ(, JR. Associate Justice Concu~d (Join PJ's Dissenting Opinion) ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice . FABON-VICTORINO (On Leave) CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA Associate Justice ~ .. ~ .~.S" MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice