COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES AKTIEBOLAG (UIPA)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL, CTA EB NO. 2823 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 9930) Petitioner, -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles,]]. UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES Promulgated: AKTIEBOLAG (UIPA), SEP 3 0 202 Respondent. X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, f.: For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration"1 received by the Court on March 19, 2025, with respondent's "Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 17, 2024" ftled on April29, 2025 and received by the Court on May 6, 2025.2 Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion o f which reads as follows: ''WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. T he Amended Decision jV 1 Rollo, CT A I�:B �o. 2823, pp. 508-517. 2 lbitl., pp. 523-541.

RESOLCTIO'-: CL\ EB ~0. 2823 elated June 29, 2023 and Resolution elated October 13, 2023 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." Petitioner maintains that respondent is not entitled to a tax refund issued to a juridical entity named "United International Pictures ,\B"; that the controlling factor in the issuance of refund claim is the company's registered name in the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); that respondent's registered name did not match with the entity named in CIA Case No. 6912, hence respondent cannot be deemed eligible for the refund; that respondent failed to prove that United International Pictures .\ktiebolag is the same as United International Pictures .-\B because respondent failed to present a certification from the SEC regarding the certain!)' of the corporate name of the respondent; and that respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the BIR did not comply with the \'Crit of Execution. l\leanwhile, respondent asserts that United International Pictures Aktiebolag and United International Pictures "\B is one and the same entity; that the CL\ Special first Division correctly ruled that the admitted pieces of evidence during the proceedings in CL\ Case ~o. 9930 arc sufficient to prove that United International Pictures _-\Bin CL\ Case No. 6912 is the same as UIP Akticbolag; .\B is merely an abbreviation of .-\ktiebolag in the same manner as Corp. is the abbreviation of Corporation and Co. is the abbreviation of Company; that United International Pictures AB is the same as United International Pictures "-\ktiebolag, thus it is entitled to the tax refund issued in CL\ Case No. 6912 which became final and executory on September 19, 2008; that the principle of .rtrictirJ�imtjim~r is inapplicable; and that the records are replete with evidence that petitioner did not complv with the writ of execution. ,\ careful and closer look at the arguments raised by petitioner rn his present motion reveals that the grounds relied upon and the matters raised therein arc mere restatenlCnts of his previous arguments. The Court E11 Bml( notes that petitioner basically rehashed his arguments which were sufficiently passed upon and discussed by the Court in Division in its .\mended Decision and Resolution, and in the assailed E11 Ball( Decision. In the case of SbaJJgli-Lo f11tema!iona/ Hole/ Aia11age11!e!l! Ltd., et a! J!J". DeJ;e/ope!:r Gro11p of Compa11ie.r, 111(., 1 the Supreme Court denied respondent's !\lotion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: ~

P',\ge 3 of 4 RESOLL:T!O~ CL\ EB NO. 282:1 "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. \'Vhile DGCI is correct in stating rhat 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 sclltardy addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves mcl\�ant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. "\s it is, however, the instant motion docs nor raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." It must be stressed that amonPu the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is preciseh� to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence" If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration mustnccessarilv fail. In view of the foregoing, the Court E11 Ba11c will no longer belabor to repeat the discussions in the a:";ailed Decision, .\mended Decision, and Resolution of the Court in Division since it would only result to mere superfluity. ACCORDINGLY, the "i\Iotion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 1&. -4-..~. y _, - - MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justicc ~�7�~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN c\ssociatc justice 1 Tcudlfio ,\1. Coqliilla "�'� Tk, f-{ul!. CumJJJi.,�.,�irm 011 L~lr:d/oi/J t/1/d .-�\lJ: .\.eil.\I. ./ll!'rll"r!:;:_, C~.R. "'\ o. 1:119 J.-1, July 31, 2002.

Page 4 of4 RESOLUTIO'-; CT-\ EB :"0. 282:) ~~ Rr:EY~E~~A..JAn~�DO~ MARIAN IvY f). Associate J usticc ~~~VlD .\ssuciatc Justice c~~~Rii~s ,\ssociate J usticc HENRY /Jf;;GELES .\ssociate Justice