COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SELLERY PHILS. ENTERPRISES, INC.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB No. 2756 INTERNAL REVENUE, {CTA Case No. 10047) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN , BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID , FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES, JJ. SELLERY PHILS. Promulgated: ENTERPRISES, INC., MAR 0 3 2025 Responde nt. X----------- ----- ---- -- - ----- -------- - ---- X RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J .: For resolution of the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Notice of Decision promulgated on August 5, 2024) filed on August 22, 2024, with respondent's Comment (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 04 December 2023) filed on September 18, 2024. For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the August 5, 2024 Decisionl reads: "WHEREF ORE , the ins t a nt Petition for Review is DE NIED , for lack of m erit. S O ORDER ED. "2 I En Bane (EB) Docket,_J?.P- 59-77. 2 /d., p. 76. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2756 In his motion, petitioner asserts that the Court En Bane erred in ruling that no Letter of Authority (LOA) was issued for the examination of respondent's books of account. Respondent counters that: (1) petitioner's argument that Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 8-2006 revoked RMO No. 43-90 has no basis; (2) the Revenue Officer is not armed with a valid LOA; (3) petitioner is not correct to insist that the assessment made was accorded with presumption of regularity; (4) the assessment made by petitioner without a valid LOA is not a mere technicality; and (5) petitioner failed to establish that respondent actually received the assessment notice through substituted service. After careful consideration of the parties' respective assertions, the Court En Bane finds the instant motion unmeritorious. The Court observes that pet1tloner essentially lifted his arguments and discussion3 in the instant motion from his Petition for Review, and these matters were already addressed in the subject Decision. As to the issue concerning the requisite LOA, the Court En Bane ruled that: "Clearly, as early as the Sony Philippines case in 2010, the Supreme Court had already emphasized the importance of an LOA as a grant of authority before any RO can conduct an examination or assessment. Then, the Medicard case in 2017 also echoed the importance of an LOA, where the Supreme Court stated that the issuance of a Letter Notice to a taxpayer was not sufficient if no corresponding LOA was issued. This same doctrine was revisited in Opulent case in 2020. Finally, in the McDonald's case and the subsequent Wellington case in 2021 and 2022, respectively, the Supreme Court already recognized the disturbing practice of the BIR, as in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court categorically stated that the reassignment or transfer of an RO requires the issuance of a new or amended LOA for the substitute or replacement RO to continue the audit or investigation. "4 (Emphasis supplied) 3 Petition for Review, pp. 4-7. 4 See Note 1, p. 74. ~

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2756 As to petitioner's violation of respondent's right to due process, i.e., petitioner did not afford respondent an opportunity to respond to the Preliminary Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice, the Court En Bane found that: "As per evidence on record, the PAN, FLO and FANs were all sent by petitioner to respondent through registered mail. However, petitioner failed to present evidence that respondent actually received the said notices and the date of their receipt."S At any rate, the Court En Bane need not fully reiterate the discussions in the subject Decision, which already squarely addressed the issues raised in the instant motion. Considering that petitioner failed to raise any substantial ground to warrant the reconsideration of the subject Decision, the denial of the instant motion is in order. WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Notice of Decision promulgated on August 5, 2024) is DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~ 7- /fl-�....-..,."----- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~. ~ "7'--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice 5 Id.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2756 TO-SAN PEDRO r. ~ ~ ~ ~ r~�a-..rk MARIAN Ity F. RE4ES-Fk'JARDO Associate Justice LANE~h~VID Associate Justice CO~As:soc~iate~J~u=R~EJ S HENRY j~NGELES Associate Justice